USA v. Jesse Bernard Robinson, Jr.

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 21-10429
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JESSE BERNARD ROBINSON, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 6:20-cr-00127-WWB-DCI-1
____________________
USCA11 Case: 21-10429 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2023 Page: 1 of 4

-- 1 of 4 --

2 Opinion of the Court 21-10429
Before J ORDAN, NEWSOM , AND L UCK , Circuit Judges.
PER C URIAM :
Jesse Bernard Robinson, Jr. appeals his 188-month sentence
for eight counts of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute
fentanyl and distribution of fentanyl. Robinson challenges his sen-
tence as substantively unreasonable because the district court failed
to account for his difficult background, excessively weighed his
criminal history, and abused its discretion by denying his request
for a downward variance from the applicable guideline range. We
affirm.
We evaluate the reasonableness of a sentence under a “def-
erential abuse-of-discretion standard.”
See Gall v. United States,
552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). In reviewing the substantive reasonableness
of a sentence, we consider the totality of the circumstances and
whether the sentence achieves the purposes of sentencing stated in
18 U.S.C. section 3553(a).
See United States v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d
1319, 1324 (11th Cir. 2008).
The purposes of sentencing include promoting respect for
the law, providing just punishment, deterring criminal conduct,
and protecting the public from further crimes. 18 U.S.C. §
3553(a)(2). A sentencing court also should consider the nature and
circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the
defendant, the kinds of sentences available, the guideline range,
USCA11 Case: 21-10429 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2023 Page: 2 of 4

-- 2 of 4 --

21-10429 Opinion of the Court 3
policy statements of the Sentencing Commission, and the need to
avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities.
Id. § 3553(a)(1), (3)–(7).
We will disturb a sentence “only if we are left with the defi-
nite and firm conviction that the district court committed a clear
error of judgment in weighing the section 3553(a) factors by arriv-
ing at a sentence that lies outside the range of reasonable sentences
dictated by the facts of the case.”
United States v. Shabazz, 887 F.3d
1204, 1224 (11th Cir. 2018) (alterations omitted). The party chal-
lenging the sentence bears the burden of showing that the sentence
is unreasonable in the light of the record and the section 3553(a)
factors.
Id.
Robinson has failed to demonstrate that his 188-month sen-
tence is substantively unreasonable. Robinson’s sentence repre-
sents the low end of the advisory guideline range of 188 to 235
months’ imprisonment. Although we do not automatically pre-
sume that a within-guideline sentence is reasonable, we ordinarily
expect it to be.
United States v. Perkins, 787 F.3d 1329, 1342 (11th
Cir. 2015).
The district court explained that a sentence of 188 months
was sufficient but not greater than necessary to achieve the pur-
poses of sentencing set forth in section 3553(a). The district court
considered Robinson’s personal history and acknowledged that he
suffered a horrific childhood. The district court recognized that
Robinson’s parents had been in prison, that he had been shuffled
back and forth, and that he had learned to see drug use as normal.
The district court added, however, that there are many people who
USCA11 Case: 21-10429 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2023 Page: 3 of 4

-- 3 of 4 --

4 Opinion of the Court 21-10429
have very difficult childhoods but end up making something of
themselves without choosing to break the law. This record clearly
shows that the district court did not fail to weigh Robinson’s trou-
bled background as Robinson alleges.
Nor did the district court abuse its discretion in denying
Robinson’s request for a downward variance. The district court
noted that Robinson had a twenty-year criminal history that in-
cluded previous convictions for selling drugs. The district court
explained that Robinson had been to prison before, that he previ-
ously turned down drug treatment, and that he had committed a
serious offense that wreaks havoc on communities. The district
court emphasized Robinson’s criminal history, the seriousness of
his offenses, and the deterrent effect of a guideline sentence. Fi-
nally, the district court stated that it had considered the section
3553(a) factors and found that a sentence within the applicable
guideline range was appropriate and sufficient but not greater than
necessary to comply with the statutory purposes of sentencing.
Robinson identifies no factors in section 3553(a) that the dis-
trict court failed to consider, nor does he provide any support for
his assertion that the district court placed too much weight on his
criminal history. The record leaves us with no “definite and firm
conviction that the district court committed a clear error of judg-
ment.”
Shabazz, 887 F.3d at 1224. Because the district court
abused no discretion, we affirm Robinson’s sentence.
AFFIRMED.
USCA11 Case: 21-10429 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2023 Page: 4 of 4

-- 4 of 4 --