USA v. Thomas Coelho

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-12804
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
THOMAS COELHO,
a.k.a. Thomas Coehlo,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 8:21-cr-00123-TPB-CPT-1
USCA11 Case: 22-12804 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 09/27/2023 Page: 1 of 5

-- 1 of 5 --

2 Opinion of the Court 22-12804
____________________
Before WILSON , L UCK, and ANDERSON , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Thomas Coelho appeals his sentence of 120 months’ impris-
onment for wire fraud. Coelho argues that the district court failed
to adequately explain its sentencing decision or to consider his mit-
igation argument. He further argues that the district court failed
to enter a written statement of reasons that sufficiently explained
its reasoning for imposing a sentence outside the guideline range.
I.
Where a defendant challenges a sentence as procedurally
unreasonable based on the adequacy of the district court’s explana-
tion, we review de novo, even in the absence of a timely objection
at sentencing. United States v. Oudomsine, 57 F.4th 1262, 1265 (11th
Cir. 2023).
A sentence is procedurally reasonable when the district
court, among other things, duly considers the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors and adequately explains its chosen sentence. Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The relevant § 3553(a) factors include
the nature and circumstances of the offense; the history and char-
acteristics of the defendant; the applicable sentencing guideline
range; the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the
offense, protect the public, and deter the defendant; and the need
to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a);
see Gall, 552 U.S. at 50 n.6. The district court must “state in open
USCA11 Case: 22-12804 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 09/27/2023 Page: 2 of 5

-- 2 of 5 --

22-12804 Opinion of the Court 3
court the reasons for its imposition of the particular sentence” that
it selects. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c). If a court selects a sentence outside
of the guideline range, it must describe the reason for its variance
with specificity. Id. § 3553(c)(2).
While a district court must consider the § 3553(a) factors in
determining a sentence, it is not required to state in its explanation
that it has evaluated each factor individually. United States v. Ortiz-
Delgado, 451 F.3d 752, 758 (11th Cir. 2006). An acknowledgment
by the district court that it has considered the § 3553(a) factors is
sufficient. United States v. Turner, 474 F.3d 1265, 1281 (11th Cir.
2007). Further, the district court must set forth a sufficient expla-
nation to satisfy the appellate court that it has “considered the par-
ties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis” for its sentencing deci-
sion. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356. But the court is under
no duty to explain the sentence in “great detail.” United States v.
Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1195 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc). A district court’s
failure to specifically discuss a defendant’s mitigation argument
does not mean that the court has “erroneously ‘ignored’ or failed
to consider this evidence” in determining a sentence. United States
v. Amedeo, 487 F.3d 823, 833 (11th Cir. 2007).
Here, Coelho’s sentence is not procedurally unreasonable
because the district court adequately explained the sentence im-
posed. The court stated, in open court, that it had heard from all
of the parties and that it had considered the PSI and all of the §
3553(a) sentencing factors. Turner, 474 F.3d at 1281. The court also
relied on numerous specific § 3553(a) factors in explaining its
USCA11 Case: 22-12804 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 09/27/2023 Page: 3 of 5

-- 3 of 5 --

4 Opinion of the Court 22-12804
sentence, including protection of the public, promotion of respect
for the law, and reflection of the seriousness of the offense. Gall,
552 U.S. at 50.
Coelho has also not shown that the district court did not ad-
equately consider his mitigation argument in rendering its sentenc-
ing decision. The record shows that the court listened to Coelho’s
mitigation argument and acknowledged that it had heard from all
of the parties prior to explaining its sentencing decision. Moreover,
the court indirectly addressed Coelho’s mitigation argument that
the loss amount was at the low end of the range warranting a 16-
level enhancement when it cited the loss amount as a reason for its
upward variance. The full scope of the record and the court’s ex-
planation shows that it considered the arguments of the parties,
despite the fact that it did not explicitly address Coelho’s particular
mitigation argument. Rita, 551 U.S. at 356; Amedeo, 487 F.3d at 833.
Thus, the district court did not impose a procedurally unreasonable
sentence.
II.
Claims that a district court’s explanation of its sentencing de-
cision failed to satisfy its burden under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2) are
reviewed de novo. United States v. Parks, 823 F.3d 990, 996-97 (11th
Cir. 2016). Further, we have adopted a “per se rule of reversal for
§ 3553(c)(2) errors.” Id. at 997.
A district court imposing a sentence outside the guideline
range must state the specific reasons for its variance and must in-
clude this reason in a statement of reasons form issued under 28
USCA11 Case: 22-12804 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 09/27/2023 Page: 4 of 5

-- 4 of 5 --

22-12804 Opinion of the Court 5
U.S.C. § 994. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2). Under § 3553(c), the district
court is required to set forth a sufficient explanation to satisfy the
appellate court that it has “considered the parties’ arguments and
has a reasoned basis” for its sentencing decision. Rita, 551 U.S. at
356.
Here, the district court’s explanation in its statement of rea-
sons form was sufficient under § 3553(c)(2). The court checked
boxes identifying multiple § 3553(a) factors that supported its deci-
sion to impose an upward variance—including lack of remorse, to
reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the
law and provide just punishment for the offense, and to protect the
public from further crimes—and wrote a more detailed explana-
tion for its decision—including noting that Coelho continued to try
to contact and influence potential witnesses and noting his calls
from jail suggesting that he was going to lie about having a drug
condition to try to shorten his sentence—all of which substantially
matched its oral explanation at the sentencing hearing.
AFFIRMED.
USCA11 Case: 22-12804 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 09/27/2023 Page: 5 of 5

-- 5 of 5 --