United States v. Edwin Thomas Sefton

Case: 13-11422 Date Filed: 09/23/2013 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-11422
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:12-cr-00031-HLM-WEJ-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
EDWIN THOMAS SEFTON,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(September 23, 2013)
Before DUBINA, WILSON and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 13-11422 Date Filed: 09/23/2013 Page: 2 of 4
Edwin Thomas Sefton appeals his twenty-seven-month total sentence,
imposed after he pled guilty to one count of possession of an unregistered, sawed-
off shotgun, in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5845, 5861(b), and 5871, and one count
of being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g). On appeal, Sefton argues that his total sentence is substantively
unreasonable because he possessed the shotgun while he was alone in the woods,
and he did not intend to harm or even encounter another person. He argues that his
case is outside the heartland of typical federal gun cases, and that his twenty-
seven-month total sentence is greater than necessary. Upon review of the record
and consideration of the parties’ briefs, we affirm.
We review the reasonableness of a sentence under an abuse-of-discretion
standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46, 128 S. Ct. 586, 594 (2007). A
defendant challenging his sentence bears the burden of establishing that it is
unreasonable. United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir. 2005) (per
curiam).
A sentence is substantively unreasonable if it does not achieve the purposes
of sentencing stated in § 3553(a). Id. The analysis “involves examining the
totality of the circumstances, including an inquiry into whether the statutory factors
in § 3553(a) support the sentence in question.” United States v. Gonzalez, 550
F.3d 1319, 1324 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam).
2
Case: 13-11422 Date Filed: 09/23/2013 Page: 3 of 4
The factors to be considered are:
(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and
characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need to reflect the seriousness
of the offense, respect for the law, and the need to provide just
punishment; (3) the need for deterrence; (4) the need to protect the
public; (5) the need to provide the defendant with needed educational
or vocational training or medical care; (6) the kinds of sentences
available; (7) the Sentencing Guidelines range; (8) pertinent policy
statements of the Sentencing Commission; (9) the need to avoid
unwanted sentencing disparities; and (10) the need to provide
restitution to victims.
Talley, 431 F.3d at 786 (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)). “The weight to be accorded
any given § 3553(a) factor is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the
district court, and we [do] not substitute our judgment in weighing the relevant
factors.” United States v. Amedeo, 487 F.3d 823, 832 (11th Cir. 2007) (citation
omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
In terms of the reasonableness of the sentence imposed, we have held “that
there is a range of reasonable sentences from which the district court may choose,
and when the district court imposes a sentence within the advisory Guidelines
range, we ordinarily will expect that choice to be a reasonable one.” Talley, 431
F.3d at 788. In addition, a sentence that is well below the statutory maximum
supports a finding of reasonableness. See Gonzalez, 550 F.3d at 1324.
Sefton’s twenty-seven-month total sentence is substantively reasonable.
First, it was within the guideline range of 27 to 33 months. Second, it was far
below the ten-year statutory maximum penalty carried by each count. Third,
3
Case: 13-11422 Date Filed: 09/23/2013 Page: 4 of 4
Sefton’s sentence was supported by the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the goals
of sentencing. In reaching its decision, the district court relied in part on Sefton’s
long criminal history, which included seventeen convictions. The district court
explained that it would have sentenced him at the upper end of the guidelines
absent the letters of support and other mitigating evidence he presented. With
regard to the weight assigned to each factor, we will not substitute our judgment
for that of the district court absent a clear error of judgment. See Gonzalez, 550
F.3d at 1324.
Sefton does not seem to argue that the district court made any clear error in
judgment. Rather, he simply claims that the sentence was “too high to satisfy the
parsimony principle” and that he had “no intention of harming . . . another person.”
He provides no supporting precedent for the implicit proposition that either of
these assertions indicate clear error on the part of the district court.
Moreover, the fact that this court has affirmed large variances in what Sefton
asserts are “much more serious cases” is inapposite. The standard of review is
abuse-of-discretion; Sefton bears a much heavier burden in asking this court to
vacate his sentence than did the appellees who sought affirmance of their sentences
in those cases. He has failed to meet his burden.
AFFIRMED.
4