USA v. Shauntavus Berklin

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-13803
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
SHAUNTAVUS BERKLIN,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 2:21-cr-00048-TPB-NPM-1
____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-13803 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 12/20/2023 Page: 1 of 7

-- 1 of 7 --

2 Opinion of the Court 22-13803
____________________
No. 22-13804
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
SHAUNTAVUS BERKLIN,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 2:21-cr-00104-TPB-KCD-1
____________________
Before J ILL PRYOR , B RANCH, and ANDERSON , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Shauntavus Berklin appeals his 180–month total sentence
following his convictions for knowingly possessing a firearm as a
convicted felon and knowingly and intentionally distributing a
USCA11 Case: 22-13803 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 12/20/2023 Page: 2 of 7

-- 2 of 7 --

22-13803 Opinion of the Court 3
controlled substance. He argues that his total sentence was unrea-
sonable because the district court varied upward from his applica-
ble guideline range without sufficiently factoring in his individual
characteristics, disproportionately weighed the fact that he com-
mitted the instant offenses shortly after being released from a prior
term of imprisonment, did not properly weigh the various
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and sentenced his codefendant to a
shorter term of imprisonment.1
We review the reasonableness of a sentence under a defer-
ential abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 51 (2007). The appellant has the burden of proving that the
“sentence is unreasonable in light of the entire record, the § 3553(a)
factors, and the substantial deference afforded sentencing courts.”
United States v. Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d 1249, 1256 (11th Cir. 2015).
“[A] district court abuses its discretion when it (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 fac-
tors.” United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1189 (11th Cir. 2010) (en
banc).
In reviewing a sentence for reasonableness, we first consider
whether the district court committed any significant procedural
1 Berklin initially appealed the determination of his offense level as well. The
Government successfully moved to dismiss that portion of his appeal based on
appeal waivers.
USCA11 Case: 22-13803 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 12/20/2023 Page: 3 of 7

-- 3 of 7 --

4 Opinion of the Court 22-13803
error and next consider whether the sentence was substantively
reasonable. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
Section 3553(c) requires that “[t]he sentencing judge . . . set
forth [sufficient reasoning] to satisfy the appellate court that he has
considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for ex-
ercising his own legal decisionmaking authority.” Rita v. United
States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007).
We will measure substantive reasonableness by considering
the totality of the circumstances and whether the sentence achieves
the sentencing purposes stated in § 3553(a). United States v. Sarras,
575 F.3d 1191, 1219 (11th Cir. 2009). The sentencing court must
impose a sentence “sufficient, but not greater than necessary,” to
reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law,
provide just punishment for the offense, deter criminal conduct,
protect the public from future crimes of the defendant, and provide
the defendant with needed educational or vocational training or
medical care. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). The court must also consider
the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and
characteristics of the defendant, the kinds of sentences available,
the sentencing guidelines range, pertinent policy statements of the
Sentencing Commission, the need to avoid unwarranted sentenc-
ing disparities, and the need to provide restitution to victims. Id.
§ 3553(a)(1), (3)-(7).
We will only vacate a defendant’s sentence as unreasonable
if we are “left with the definite and firm conviction that the district
court committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the
USCA11 Case: 22-13803 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 12/20/2023 Page: 4 of 7

-- 4 of 7 --

22-13803 Opinion of the Court 5
§ 3553(a) factors by arriving at a sentence that lies outside the range
of reasonable sentences dictated by the facts of the case.” United
States v. Overstreet, 713 F.3d 627, 636 (11th Cir. 2013) (quoting
United States v. Shaw, 560 F.3d 1230, 1238 (11th Cir. 2009)).
The weight given to any specific § 3553(a) factor is commit-
ted to the sound discretion of the district court. United States v.
Clay, 483 F.3d 739, 743 (11th Cir. 2007). We will not second guess
the weight that the district court gave to a § 3553(a) factor so long
as the sentence is reasonable in light of all the circumstances.
United States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179, 1191 (11th Cir. 2008). In fact, a
district court is permitted to attach great weight to one § 3553(a)
factor over others. Overstreet, 713 F.3d at 638.
Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion because
Berklin’s total sentence was reasonable. First, the district court did
not commit a procedural error. Specifically, there is no indication
that the court here failed to afford consideration to any relevant
factor that was due significant weight, that it gave significant
weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or that it committed a
clear error of judgment in considering the proper factors. Irey, 612
F.3d at 1189.
Second, Berklin’s total sentence was substantively reasona-
ble. The district court sufficiently explained the reasons it believed
an upward variance was warranted, noting that it considered the §
3553(a) factors and determined that Berklin’s total sentence was
sufficient but not greater than necessary. It expressed concern for
the danger involved with his instant offenses, including the fact that
USCA11 Case: 22-13803 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 12/20/2023 Page: 5 of 7

-- 5 of 7 --

6 Opinion of the Court 22-13803
he was involved in a high-speed car chase in 2021, possessed fenta-
nyl, which was a dangerous drug, and held people at gunpoint dur-
ing a home invasion in 2020. It also emphasized his consistent track
record of offending and reoffending, which demonstrated that he
presented a danger to the public and did not care about complying
with the law. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (2)(C). Although the court
sentenced him above his applicable guideline range, it also indi-
cated that it would have imposed a longer sentence if he had not
pled guilty, demonstrating that his plea agreement beneficially af-
fected his total sentence. The court also recognized his substance-
abuse history when explaining his total sentence. Further, the
court was not bound to the government’s request to sentence him
within his applicable guideline range.
Lastly, Berklin’s argument that his co-defendant’s sentence
was disproportionate to his own is factually and legally unsup-
ported, regardless of the standard of review. Berklin’s PSI showed
that Thurman was convicted of only 1 count, unlike Berklin, who
pled guilty to 4 counts, and Thurman received a 10–year sentence,
which, according to the district court, was the statutory maximum
he faced by law. Thus, despite Thurman receiving a sentence 60
months less than that of Berklin, there was no indication that the
disparity in their sentences was unwarranted. See 18 U.S.C. §
3553(a)(6).
Therefore, the district court did not make “a clear error of
judgment in weighing the § 3553(a) factors,” and thus Berklin’s to-
tal sentence was reasonable.
USCA11 Case: 22-13803 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 12/20/2023 Page: 6 of 7

-- 6 of 7 --

22-13803 Opinion of the Court 7
AFFIRMED.
USCA11 Case: 22-13803 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 12/20/2023 Page: 7 of 7

-- 7 of 7 --