United States v. Juan David Acosta

Case: 17-10570 Date Filed: 09/01/2017 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
Nos. 17-10570; 17-11498
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:16-cr-60194-DTKH-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JUAN DAVID ACOSTA,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(September 1, 2017)
Before JULIE CARNES, JILL PRYOR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 17-10570 Date Filed: 09/01/2017 Page: 2 of 4
Juan David Acosta appeals his total one-year and one-day sentence, imposed
above the guideline range, after he pleaded guilty to two counts of receiving a
misbranded device and delivery for pay with intent to defraud or mislead, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 331(c), 333(a)(2). On appeal, Acosta argues that his
sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court improperly
weighed the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
We review the reasonableness of a sentence under a deferential abuse-of-
discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The party
challenging the sentence bears the burden to show it is unreasonable in light of the
record and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. United States v. Tome, 611 F.3d 1371,
1378 (11th Cir. 2010).
“A sentence may be procedurally unreasonable if the district court
improperly calculates the Guidelines range, treats the Guidelines as mandatory
rather than advisory, fails to consider the appropriate statutory factors, selects a
sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or fails to adequately explain the chosen
sentence.” United States v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319, 1323 (11th Cir. 2008). If the
sentence is procedurally sound, we then examine whether the sentence is
substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances. Gall, 552
U.S. at 51. The district court must issue a sentence “sufficient, but not greater than
necessary, to comply with” the purposes of § 3553(a)(2), which include the need
2
Case: 17-10570 Date Filed: 09/01/2017 Page: 3 of 4
for a sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law,
provide just punishment, deter criminal conduct, and protect the public from the
defendant’s future criminal conduct. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). In imposing a
particular sentence, the district court must also consider the nature and
circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant, the
kinds of sentences available, the applicable guideline range, the pertinent policy
statements of the Sentencing Commission, the need to avoid unwarranted
sentencing disparities, and the need to provide restitution to victims. Id.
§ 3553(a)(1), (3)-(7).
The district court need not explicitly discuss or state all the factors; rather,
an acknowledgement that it “has considered the defendant’s arguments and the
§ 3553(a) factors will suffice.” Gonzalez, 550 F.3d at 1324. We “will defer to the
district court’s judgment regarding the weight given to the § 3553(a) factors unless
the district court has made a clear error of judgment and has imposed a sentence
that lies outside the range of reasonable sentences dictated by the facts of the case.”
Id. (quotations omitted). A district court may attach “great weight” to one factor
over another. United States v. Shaw, 560 F.3d 1230, 1237 (11th Cir. 2009). A
sentence imposed well below the statutory maximum penalty is an indicator of
reasonableness. United States v. Dougherty, 754 F.3d 1353, 1362 (11th Cir. 2014).
3
Case: 17-10570 Date Filed: 09/01/2017 Page: 4 of 4
Section § 2B1.1(b)(15) provides for a two-level sentencing enhancement
where the offense involves the “conscious or reckless risk of death or serious
bodily injury.”
The record demonstrates that the district court carefully considered the
relevant § 3553(a) factors in determining Acosta’s sentence. The district court’s
reasoning supports the need for a more substantial sentence that will reflect the
seriousness of the offense, promote Acosta’s respect for the law, deter him from
further criminal conduct, and protect the public from his future crimes. See 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). Under the totality of circumstances, Acosta has not met his
burden of showing the sentence imposed was substantively unreasonable in light of
the record and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Tome, 611 F.3d at 1378. Based on
the foregoing, the district court did not abuse its discretion and we affirm. Gall,
552 U.S. at 51.
AFFIRMED.
4