USA v. Eugene Bartholomew Gargiulo, Jr

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 21-14123
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
EUGENE BARTHOLOMEW GARGIULO, JR.,
a.k.a. Geno Gargiulo,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 0:21-cr-60111-WPD-1
USCA11 Case: 21-14123 Date Filed: 10/04/2022 Page: 1 of 4

-- 1 of 4 --

2 Opinion of the Court 21-14123
____________________
Before L UCK , LAGOA , and B LACK , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Eugene Gargiulo, Jr. appeals his total sentence of 21 months’
imprisonment after he pleaded guilty to transportation of stolen
goods. He asserts the district court’s sentence is substantively un-
reasonable because the district court focused only on his criminal
history and refused to downwardly vary to home confinement or
a shorter term of imprisonment. After review,1 we affirm Gar-
giulo’s sentence.
The party challenging the sentence bears the burden of es-
tablishing it is unreasonable based on the facts of the case and the
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.2
United States v. Shabazz, 887 F.3d
1 When reviewing for substantive reasonableness, we consider the totality of
the circumstances under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.
Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
2 A district court is required to impose a sentence that is sufficient, but not
greater than necessary to comply with the purposes listed under § 3553(a)(2),
including the need to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect
for the law, provide just punishment, deter criminal conduct, protect the pub-
lic, and provide educational and vocational training, medical care, and other
correctional treatment in the most effective manner. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2).
Other § 3553(a) factors include the nature and circumstances of the offense,
the history and characteristics of the defendant, the kinds of sentences availa-
ble, the Sentencing Guidelines, the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing dis-
parities, and the need to provide restitution to victims.
Id. § (a)(1), (3)–(7).
USCA11 Case: 21-14123 Date Filed: 10/04/2022 Page: 2 of 4

-- 2 of 4 --

21-14123 Opinion of the Court 3
1204, 1224 (11th Cir. 2018). We must give due deference to the
district court to consider and weigh the proper sentencing factors.
Id. Along with the § 3553(a) factors, the district court should also
consider the particularized facts of the case and the guideline range.
United States v. Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d 1249, 1259-60 (11th Cir.
2015). However, it maintains discretion to give heavier weight to
any of the § 3553(a) factors or combination of factors than to the
guideline range.
Id. at 1259.
The district court also has wide discretion to decide whether
the § 3553(a) factors justify a variance.
Gall v. United States, 552
U.S. 38, 51 (2007). When rejecting a request for a variance and im-
posing a guideline sentence, the sentencing judge need not issue a
lengthy explanation so long as the judge considered the parties’ ar-
guments and the context and record indicated the reasoning behind
its conclusion.
United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1195 (11th Cir.
2010) (
en banc).
Gargiulo’s sentence is substantively reasonable. The district
court stated it considered the sentencing guidelines and the
§ 3553(a) factors. It noted and considered Gargiulo’s arguments in
mitigation, and it weighed these mitigating factors against his crim-
inal history, which the district court found was underrepresented
by his criminal history computation. It was within the district
court’s discretion to give greater weight to Gargiulo’s criminal his-
tory, and in view of the discretion the district court is granted when
considering the factors in § 3553(a), Gargiulo’s arguments fail to
show the district court abused its discretion by not varying
USCA11 Case: 21-14123 Date Filed: 10/04/2022 Page: 3 of 4

-- 3 of 4 --

4 Opinion of the Court 21-14123
downward.
See Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d at 1254 (stating the dis-
trict court does not have to give all the factors equal weight and is
given discretion to attach great weight to one factor over another).
Moreover, the district court imposed a sentence within the guide-
line range, which ordinarily indicates a sentence is reasonable.
See
United States v. Stanley, 739 F.3d 633, 656 (11th Cir. 2014) (stating
we do not apply a presumption of reasonableness to sentences
within the guideline range, but we ordinarily expect such a sen-
tence to be reasonable). Gargiulo failed to show the district court
committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the § 3553(a) fac-
tors by arriving at a sentence that lies outside the range of reason-
able sentences dictated by the facts of this case.
See Irey, 612 F.3d
at 1190 (holding we will only vacate a sentence based on substan-
tive unreasonableness if we are left with the definite and firm con-
viction 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). Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
USCA11 Case: 21-14123 Date Filed: 10/04/2022 Page: 4 of 4

-- 4 of 4 --