USA v. Maderson Alriche

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-11891
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MADERSON ALRICHE,
a.k.a. Jeffson Appiah,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 1:18-cr-20217-KMW-1
USCA11 Case: 23-11891 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 04/26/2024 Page: 1 of 6

-- 1 of 6 --

2 Opinion of the Court 23-11891
____________________
Before N EWSOM, BRASHER , and BLACK , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Maderson Alriche appeals his 13-month sentence imposed
upon revocation of his supervised release. Alriche asserts his sen-
tence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court did
not consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors or any mitigating cir-
cumstances, and the court primarily relied on contested facts. Al-
riche also contends his sentence is substantively unreasonable. Af-
ter review,1 we affirm.
I. PROCEDURAL REASONABLENESS
A sentence is procedurally unreasonable if the district court
fails to consider certain 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. United States v.
Trailer, 827 F.3d 933, 936 (11th Cir. 2016). The factors a court
should consider upon the revocation of supervised release include
the nature and circumstances of the offense, the history and char-
acteristics of the defendant, adequate deterrence, and the need to
protect the public. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1),
(a)(2)(B-C). Although the district court must consider the § 3553(a)
factors, it need not state on the record that it has explicitly consid-
ered each of the factors or discuss each in detail. United States v.
1 A sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release is reviewed for
reasonableness. United States v. Sweeting, 437 F.3d 1105, 1106-07 (11th Cir.
2006).
USCA11 Case: 23-11891 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 04/26/2024 Page: 2 of 6

-- 2 of 6 --

23-11891 Opinion of the Court 3
Kuhlman, 711 F.3d 1321, 1326 (11th Cir. 2013). The adequacy of a
sentencing judge’s explanation of the sentence will be upheld if the
“record showed that the judge listened to the evidence and argu-
ments and was aware of the various factors the defendant put for-
ward for a lesser sentence.” United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1195
(11th Cir. 2010) (en banc).
A district court’s sentence is also procedurally unreasonable
if the court failed to adequately explain the chosen sentence.
Trailer, 827 F.3d at 936. A district court, however, is not “required
to articulate [its] findings and reasoning with great detail or in any
detail for that matter.” Irey, 612 F.3d at 1195. Even if the district
court fails to articulate explicitly that it has considered the § 3553(a)
factors, the sentence is not rendered unreasonable if the record in-
dicates the court did, in fact, consider a number of the sentencing
factors. United States v. Dorman, 488 F.3d 936, 944 (11th Cir. 2007).
Alriche did not object to his sentence on the grounds the dis-
trict court failed to consider the § 3553(a) factors, or that it improp-
erly relied on contested facts, so we review his procedural reason-
ableness arguments for plain error. See United States v. Vandergrift,
754 F.3d 1303, 1307 (11th Cir. 2014) (explaining if a party does not
make an argument of procedural reasonableness before the district
court, we ordinarily review only for plain error). As to Alriche’s
first argument, the district court is not required to recite the
§ 3553(a) factors by name, so long as the record shows that it con-
sidered several of them. Dorman, 488 F.3d at 944. The court stated
it reviewed the Presentence Investigation Report and the
USCA11 Case: 23-11891 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 04/26/2024 Page: 3 of 6

-- 3 of 6 --

4 Opinion of the Court 23-11891
supervised release violation report, which pertain to Alriche’s his-
tory and characteristics and the nature and circumstances of the in-
stant offense. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1). Second, the court said it con-
sidered the mitigating factors set forth by Alriche, which also per-
tain to his history and characteristics. Id. Third, the court consid-
ered the Government’s argument, which addressed the need to
protect the public from further crimes by Alriche. 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a)(2)(C). Fourth, the district court’s finding that a Guide-
lines sentence was appropriate, “because it [seemed] like the same
mistakes [kept] getting made in the same way over and over and
over again,” shows the court considered deterrence in imposing its
sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(B). Finally, the district court ex-
plained it considered “the statement of all the parties.” This
acknowledgement demonstrates the court “listened to the evi-
dence and arguments and was aware of the various factors the de-
fendant put forward for a lesser sentence.” Irey, 612 F.3d at 1195.
As to Alriche’s second argument, that the district court im-
properly relied on contested facts, this argument is meritless. Al-
riche admitted to possessing, receiving, or retaining stolen credit
cards or debit cards. Alriche failed to meet his burden of showing
the district court’s sentence was procedurally unreasonable under
plain-error review. See Vandergrift, 754 F.3d at 1307.
II. SUBSTANTIVE REASONABLENESS
When reviewing for substantive reasonableness, the party
challenging a sentence bears the burden of proving the sentence is
unreasonable in light of the record, the factors listed in 18 U.S.C.
USCA11 Case: 23-11891 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 04/26/2024 Page: 4 of 6

-- 4 of 6 --

23-11891 Opinion of the Court 5
§ 3553(a), and the substantial deference afforded sentencing courts.
United States v. Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d 1249, 1256 (11th Cir. 2015).
The 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
factors.” Irey, 612 F.3d at 1189 (quotation marks omitted).
The weight given to any specific § 3553(a) factor is commit-
ted to the sound discretion of the district court, and we will not
substitute our judgment in weighing the relevant factors.
Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d at 1254. The district court also does not
have to give all the factors equal weight and is given discretion to
attach great weight to one factor over another. Id. Along with the
§ 3553(a) factors, the district court should also consider the partic-
ularized facts of the case and the Guidelines range. Id. at 1259-60.
Alriche’s within-Guidelines-range sentence is substantively
reasonable. Alriche’s claim the district court ignored mitigating
factors is unsupported by the record. As discussed above, the court
considered several § 3553(a) factors, along with the various factors
that Alriche put forward for a lesser sentence. Still, despite Al-
riche’s post-release progress, the district court was within its discre-
tion to heavily weigh the factors of deterrence and the history and
characteristics of the defendant. Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d at 1254.
Because Alriche’s 13-month sentence was within the Guidelines
range, there is an expectation of reasonableness. See United States
v. Wayerski, 624 F.3d 1342, 1353 (11th Cir. 2010) (stating there “is
USCA11 Case: 23-11891 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 04/26/2024 Page: 5 of 6

-- 5 of 6 --

6 Opinion of the Court 23-11891
an expectation of reasonableness when a district court imposes a
sentence within the applicable Guidelines range”). Alriche has
failed to show the district court abused its discretion in weighing
the § 3553(a) factors. See Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d at 1256; see also
Irey, 612 F.3d at 1189. Accordingly, we affirm Alriche’s sentence.
AFFIRMED.
USCA11 Case: 23-11891 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 04/26/2024 Page: 6 of 6

-- 6 of 6 --