review a district court‟s sentencing order for reasonableness, under an abuse of discretion
standard.” United States v. Christie, 624 F.3d 558, 574 (3d Cir. 2010). We apply “a
deferential review of the record developed by the district court to determine whether the
final sentence . . . was premised upon appropriate and judicious consideration of the
relevant factors,” and may not overturn a sentence merely because “we may ourselves
have imposed a sentence different from that of the district court.” United States v.
Schweitzer, 454 F.3d 197, 204 (3d Cir. 2006).
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), a court “shall impose a sentence sufficient, but
not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes” of, inter alia, promoting respect
for the law, deterring criminal conduct, punishing an offense, and protecting the public
from further crimes. In this regard, “the defendant bears the burden of proving that the
sentence was unreasonable.” United States v. Charles, 467 F.3d 828, 833 (3d Cir. 2006)
(emphasis in original). Hampton contends in conclusory fashion that the District Court
could have sentenced him to a lesser term of imprisonment, but offers no substantive
argument as to why the imposed sentence was actually unreasonable or “greater than
necessary” to address the seriousness of Hampton‟s offenses and his undeniable
recidivism. The District Court adjudged Hampton‟s repetitive crimes “most serious” and
factored in its decision his criminal history and prior experience receiving diminished
sentences, finding the Guideline sentence insufficient to punish and deter. Hampton has
failed to demonstrate the unreasonableness of this conclusion.
Finally, Hampton contends that the District Court‟s imposition of a consecutive –
rather than concurrent – sentence for violating his supervised release on the earlier