USA v. Alain Belizaire

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 20-10797
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:19-cr-60244-UU-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ALAIN BELIZAIRE,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(February 16, 2021)
USCA11 Case: 20-10797 Date Filed: 02/16/2021 Page: 1 of 4

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Before WILSON, NEWSOM, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Alain Belizaire appeals his sentence of 240 months imprisonment, arguing
that it is substantively unreasonable. On December 4, 2019, Belizaire pled guilty to
one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, crack cocaine,
fentanyl, and marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(C), 846. He was
subsequently sentenced to 240 months imprisonment, followed by three years
supervised release. Belizaire argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable
because the district court failed to impose a sentence that was “sufficient, but not
greater than necessary” to achieve the goals of punishment, deterrence, and
rehabilitation, as required under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
We review the substantive reasonableness of an imposed sentence for an
abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). “The party
challenging [the] sentence has the burden of showing that the sentence is
unreasonable in light of the entire record, the § 3553(a) factors, and the substantial
deference afforded [to] sentencing courts.” United States v. Rosales-Bruno, 789
F.3d 1249, 1256 (11th Cir. 2015).
Section § 3553 governs the imposition of sentences. The sentence imposed
shall be “sufficient, but not greater than necessary” to reflect the seriousness of the
offense, provide just punishment, afford adequate deterrence, protect the public
USCA11 Case: 20-10797 Date Filed: 02/16/2021 Page: 2 of 4

-- 2 of 4 --

3
from further crimes of a defendant, and provide treatment, care, or training to a
defendant in the most effective manner. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). Among other
factors, the district court must also consider the “nature and circumstances of the
offense,” “the history and characteristics of the defendant,” the applicable
guidelines range, and the “need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities” among
people with similar records who were found guilty of similar conduct. Id.
§ 3553(a)(1)–(7).
While the district court must consider all applicable factors, “how much
weight to assign a particular sentencing factor is committed to the sound discretion
of the district court.” Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d at 1254 (internal quotation mark
omitted). The sentencing court may attach “great weight to one factor over others.”
Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The district court need not discuss each
factor explicitly; an acknowledgment that the court “has considered the
defendant’s arguments and the § 3553(a) factors will suffice.” United States v.
Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319, 1324 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam).
An imposed sentence is substantively unreasonable only when the district
court “(1) fails to afford consideration to relevant factors that were due significant
weight, (2) gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or
(3) commits a clear error of judgment in considering the proper factors.”
USCA11 Case: 20-10797 Date Filed: 02/16/2021 Page: 3 of 4

-- 3 of 4 --

4
Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d at 1256. Ordinarily, a sentence within the guideline range
is reasonable. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d at 1324.
Here, Belizaire’s sentence is not substantively unreasonable. The district
court considered the nature, circumstances, and seriousness of the offense. The
court acknowledged that Belizaire was remorseful, that he had been cooperating
with the government—though it had not yet led to an arrest—and that the crime
had resulted in someone’s death. In light of all of the factors, the judge reasoned
that a 240-month sentence was appropriate. This sentence is within the guidelines
range.
The district court was not required to expressly address each of the § 3553(a)
factors. Id. It was within the district court’s discretion to give more weight to the
seriousness and outcome of the offense and less weight to Belizaire’s
remorsefulness or commitment to rehabilitating himself. Belizaire failed to meet
his burden to show that his sentence is unreasonable. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
USCA11 Case: 20-10797 Date Filed: 02/16/2021 Page: 4 of 4

-- 4 of 4 --