USA v. Trevor Alec Hruby

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-14245
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
TREVOR ALEC HRUBY,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cr-00014-AW-GRJ-1
____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-14245 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 09/27/2023 Page: 1 of 5

-- 1 of 5 --

2 Opinion of the Court 22-14245
Before J ORDAN , BRANCH, and ANDERSON , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Trevor Hruby appeals the procedural and substantive rea-
sonableness of his 1,440-month sentence for 4 counts of production
of child pornography. Hruby argues that his sentence is unreason-
able because the district court abused its discretion in assigning
weight to the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and failed to focus on the
individualized, particularized mitigating facts of his case.
When reviewing the reasonableness of a sentence, we first
consider whether the district court committed a procedural error.
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). A district court commits
a procedural sentencing error when it imposes a sentence based on
clearly erroneous facts, fails to calculate or improperly calculates
the guideline range, fails to consider the § 3553(a) factors, treats the
Guidelines as mandatory, or fails to explain the chosen sentence.
Id. While the district court must consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors, it is not required to state on the record that it has explicitly
considered each of the factors or to discuss each of them. United
States v. Kuhlman, 711 F.3d 1321, 1326 (11th Cir. 2013). Instead, an
acknowledgment by the district court that it considered the factors
is sufficient. United States v. Turner, 474 F.3d 1265, 1281 (11th Cir.
2007).
After ensuring that a sentence is procedurally sound, we
then consider the substantive reasonableness of a sentence. Id.
The district court must impose a sentence that is “sufficient, but
USCA11 Case: 22-14245 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 09/27/2023 Page: 2 of 5

-- 2 of 5 --

22-14245 Opinion of the Court 3
not greater than necessary” to reflect the seriousness of the offense,
promote respect for the law, provide just punishment, afford ade-
quate deterrence, protect the public, and provide the defendant
with any needed correctional treatment or training. 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a)(2). It must also consider the nature and circumstances of
the offense, the defendant’s history and characteristics, the kinds of
sentences available, the applicable guidelines range, any pertinent
policy statements, and the need to avoid sentencing disparities be-
tween similarly-situated defendants. Id. § 3553(a)(1), (3)-(7).
The weight given to each factor lies within the district
court’s sound discretion, and it may reasonably attach great weight
to a single factor. Kuhlman, 711 F.3d at 1327. Nevertheless, a dis-
trict court abuses its discretion if it “(1) fails to afford consideration
to relevant factors that were due significant weight; (2) gives signif-
icant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor; or (3) commits a
clear error of judgment in considering the proper factors.” United
States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1189 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (quota-
tion marks omitted). Although we do not automatically presume
that a sentence within the Guidelines range is reasonable, we ordi-
narily expect such a sentence to be reasonable. United States v.
Hunt, 526 F.3d 739, 746 (11th Cir. 2008).
As an initial matter, the argument that Hruby frames as pro-
cedural reasonableness challenges only the weight afforded to cer-
tain § 3553(a) factors, and therefore addresses only substantive rea-
sonableness. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. In any event, to the extent
that he argues that the district court procedurally erred by failing
USCA11 Case: 22-14245 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 09/27/2023 Page: 3 of 5

-- 3 of 5 --

4 Opinion of the Court 22-14245
to consider certain § 3553(a) factors altogether, such as the need to
avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities, the court stated that it
considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and it was not required
to specifically discuss all of the § 3553(a) factors. Turner, 474 F.3d
at 1281.
As to substantive reasonableness, the court did not fail to
consider relevant factors that were due significant weight, give sig-
nificant weight to an improper factor, or clearly err in considering
the proper factors. Irey, 612 F.3d at 1189. The court stated on the
record that it had considered the arguments set forth at sentencing,
the PSI, and the sentencing memorandum. The record also reflects
that the court had considered all of the mitigation and reviewed
both the sentencing memorandum and the letters from Hruby’s
family, which explained each mitigating factor in detail. The court
walked through the mitigation on the record, discussing the impact
that Hruby’s youth, his victimhood, his lack of criminal history,
and his acceptance of responsibility had on its decision. This expla-
nation shows that the court considered each of the mitigating fac-
tors that Hruby argues on appeal were ignored. The court further
asserted that the severity of the offense conduct “[was] just too
much to justify anything short of the sentence [imposed], notwith-
standing that mitigation.” Doc. 51 at 2). The court stated that
Hruby’s sexual interest in children made him a danger to society
and expressed that, accordingly, the sentence imposed was neces-
sary to protect the public. The court was permitted to attach
greater weight to the seriousness of the offense conduct, which in-
volved repeated sexual offenses against multiple children in
USCA11 Case: 22-14245 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 09/27/2023 Page: 4 of 5

-- 4 of 5 --

22-14245 Opinion of the Court 5
Hruby’s care, and to the need to protect the public, than to the mit-
igating evidence. See Kuhlman, 711 F.3d at 1327; (Doc. 51 at 26-27).
Finally, Hruby’s sentence was within the guidelines recom-
mendation, which further suggests that it was reasonable. See
Hunt, 526 F.3d at 746. The district court did not abuse its discretion
and Hruby’s sentence is reasonable.
AFFIRMED.
USCA11 Case: 22-14245 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 09/27/2023 Page: 5 of 5

-- 5 of 5 --