USCA11 Case: 19-15082 Date Filed: 10/07/2020 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 19-15082
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:16-cr-60274-BB-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ALEX BERNADIN,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(October 7, 2020)
USCA11 Case: 19-15082 Date Filed: 10/07/2020 Page: 2 of 5
Before MARTIN, LAGOA, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Alex Bernadin appeals the district court’s order sentencing him to 24-
months imprisonment for violating the terms of his supervised release. Bernadin
argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. After careful review, we
affirm Bernadin’s sentence.
I.
In 2017, Bernadin was sentenced to 21-months imprisonment followed by
three years of supervised release for possession with intent to distribute cocaine in
violation of
21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). His supervised release began in May 2018.
The terms of supervision required, among other things, that Bernadin not violate
the law, maintain lawful employment, support dependents, perform 50 community
service hours, and report to his probation officer.
In March 2019, the district court signed a Petition for Warrant or Summons
for Offender Under Supervision, which alleged that Bernadin had violated the
terms of his supervised release in four ways: (1) failing to refrain from violating
the law by being charged with one count of attempted first-degree murder;
(2) failing to refrain from violating the law by being charged with one count of
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon; (3) failing to perform any of his 50
community service hours; and (4) failing to report to the probation officer. The
2
USCA11 Case: 19-15082 Date Filed: 10/07/2020 Page: 3 of 5
district court held a final revocation hearing, during which Bernadin admitted to
violations two, three, and four. The government withdrew the first violation.
Bernadin also admitted that the firearms violation arose from an altercation during
which he fired shots in the presence of the mother of one of his children. After
calculating the guideline range at 15 to 21 months imprisonment, the district court
imposed the statutory maximum 24-month sentence with no supervision to follow.
This is Bernadin’s appeal.
II.
We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence imposed upon
revocation of supervised release for abuse of discretion, based on the totality of
circumstances. Gall v. United States,
552 U.S. 38, 51,
128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007);
United States v. Sweeting,
437 F.3d 1105, 1106–07 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam).
The district court has discretion to impose a sentence outside the guideline range,
so long as the justification for the variance supports its degree. United States v.
Irey,
612 F.3d 1160, 1196 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc). We vacate a sentence as
substantively unreasonable only if “we are left with the definite and firm
conviction that the district court committed a clear error of judgment in weighing
the § 3553(a) factors by arriving at a sentence that lies outside the range of
reasonable sentences dictated by the facts of the case.” Id. at 1190 (quotation
marks omitted).
3
USCA11 Case: 19-15082 Date Filed: 10/07/2020 Page: 4 of 5
Bernadin argues his 24-month sentence is substantively unreasonable
because the district court overemphasized the violent nature of his firearms
violation while failing to properly account for other aspects of his history and
characteristics, including the fact that he has a newborn baby, he works three jobs
to support his dependents, he obtained his GED while incarcerated, and he did not
have any disciplinary infractions while incarcerated. We disagree.
Bernadin’s family obligations and work history are good arguments in favor
of a lower sentence. However, “it is within [the district court’s] discretion to
decide how much weight to give each of the § 3553(a) factors as long as it has not
committed a clear error of judgment.” United States v. Mateos,
623 F.3d 1350,
1368 (11th Cir. 2010). Here, the district court considered the factors emphasized
by Bernadin, but ultimately determined that the violent nature of Bernadin’s
firearms violation as well as his failure to perform a single hour of community
service in three years or report to probation as instructed outweighed them. The
court explained that it found the violence “disturbing” and expressed concern that
Bernadin was “continuing to engage in criminal conduct.” We cannot say this
constitutes an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Fox,
926 F.3d 1275, 1282
(11th Cir. 2019) (“It is not an abuse of discretion to afford more weight to one of
the § 3553(a) factors.”). For this reason, and because Bernadin’s 24-month
4
USCA11 Case: 19-15082 Date Filed: 10/07/2020 Page: 5 of 5
sentence is a mere three months above the top-end of his guideline range, it is not
substantively unreasonable.
AFFIRMED.
5
