USA v. Daniel Museau

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-10766
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DANIEL MUSEAU,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cr-20436-KMM-1
____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-10766 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 02/15/2024 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2 Opinion of the Court 23-10766
Before JILL PRYOR , N EWSOM, and A NDERSON , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Daniel Museau, proceeding with counsel, appeals his
120-month sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm and
ammunition. He argues that the sentence is substantively unrea-
sonable because (1) he accepted responsibility for his crime, and (2)
the district court gave insufficient weight to certain 18 U.S.C. §
3553(a) factors.
We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for
abuse of discretion. United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1188–89
(11th Cir. 2010) (en banc). A court abuses its discretion if it does not
give relevant factors due weight, significantly weighs an irrelevant
or improper factor, or errs in its consideration of sentencing fac-
tors. Id. at 1189. We vacate a sentence as substantively unreason-
able only when left with a “definite and firm conviction” that the
district court made a clear error of judgment. Id. at 1190. The party
challenging the sentence has the burden to demonstrate that the
sentence is unreasonable. Id. at 1191 n.16.
A sentencing court must “impose a sentence sufficient, but
not greater than necessary,” to reflect the seriousness of the of-
fense, promote respect for the law, provide just punishment, deter
crime, and protect the public. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The court must
also consider “the nature and circumstances of the offense” and the
defendant’s individual history and characteristics. Id. A Guide-
lines-range sentence is expected—but not automatically
USCA11 Case: 23-10766 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 02/15/2024 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

23-10766 Opinion of the Court 3
presumed—to be reasonable. United States v. Hunt, 526 F.3d 739,
746 (11th Cir. 2008). The weight committed to each § 3553(a) fac-
tor is committed to the district court’s sound discretion. United
States v. Johnson, 803 F.3d 610, 618 (11th Cir. 2015).
Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion because
it imposed a substantively reasonable sentence. See Irey, 612 F.3d
at 1188–89. The district court considered Museau’s history of vio-
lent crime, a lack of deterrence from sentences for prior convic-
tions, and the need to protect society. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). It
also stated explicitly that it had considered the § 3553(a) factors.
The court had discretion to significantly weigh Museau’s history
and the need to protect the public from crime. See Johnson, 803 F.3d
at 618. Museau has not, therefore, demonstrated that the district
court made a clear error of judgment or weighed an improper fac-
tor. See Irey, 612 F.3d at 1190–91 & n.16.
AFFIRMED
USCA11 Case: 23-10766 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 02/15/2024 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --