Case: 13-14768 Date Filed: 03/19/2014 Page: 3 of 5
range, 21 to 27 months confinement, would have been sufficient to provide just
punishment, protect the public, and deter him from further criminal activity. See
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A),(B) and (C).
We review the reasonableness of a sentence under a deferential abuse of
discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 128 S.Ct. 586, 591,
169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). We may “set aside a sentence only if we determine, after
giving a full measure of deference to the sentencing judge, that the sentence
imposed truly is unreasonable.” United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1191 (11th
Cir. 2010) (en banc).
The District Court was required to impose a sentence “sufficient, but not
greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes” listed in 18 U.S.C. §
3553(a)(2). See note 1, supra. In imposing a particular sentence, the court had to
consider as well the nature and circumstances of the offense, the history and
characteristics of the defendant, the kinds of sentences available, the applicable
guideline range, the pertinent policy statements of the Sentencing Commission, the
need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities, and the need to provide
restitution to victims. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (3)-(7).
When a sentencing court determines that a sentence outside the applicable
Guidelines range is appropriate, it must consider the extent of the deviation and