USCA11 Case: 21-11077 Date Filed: 09/21/2022 Page: 1 of 5

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 21-11077 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ANTONIO MONTEZ DENSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama D.C. Docket No. 7:19-cr-00556-LSC-JHE-1 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 21-11077 Date Filed: 09/21/2022 Page: 2 of 5

2 Opinion of the Court 21-11077

Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Antonio Denson appeals his 120-month sentence for one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Before the district court, he requested a 78-month sentence, but the district court rejected his request, var- ied upward, and sentenced him to 120 months’ imprisonment, the statutory maximum. On appeal, Denson argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court did not meaningfully consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and failed to justify the upward variance. We review a sentence’s reasonableness for abuse of discre- tion, “[r]egardless of whether the sentence imposed is inside or out- side the Guidelines range.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). A criminal defendant preserves the issue of the substantive reasonableness of his sentence for review by advocating for a less severe sentence. Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 762, 766–67 (2020). We will vacate a sentence as substantively unreasonable “only if we are left with the definite and firm conviction that the district court committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the § 3553(a) factors” as evidenced by a sentence “that is outside the range of reasonable sentences dictated by the facts of the case.” United States v. Goldman, 953 F.3d 1213, 1222 (11th Cir. 2020) USCA11 Case: 21-11077 Date Filed: 09/21/2022 Page: 3 of 5

21-11077 Opinion of the Court 3

(quotation marks omitted). “We do not presume that a sentence outside the guideline range is unreasonable and must give due def- erence to the district court’s decision that the § 3553(a) factors, as a whole, justify the extent of the variance.” Id. Nonetheless, we “take the degree of variance into account and consider the extent of a deviation from the guidelines.” United States v. Taylor, 997 F.3d 1348, 1355 (11th Cir. 2021). “Although there is no proportion- ality principle in sentencing, a major variance from the advisory guideline range requires a more significant justification than a mi- nor one, and the justification must be sufficiently compelling to support the degree of the variance.” Id. Finally, the party challeng- ing a sentence has the burden of showing that the sentence is un- reasonable in light of the entire record, the § 3553(a) factors, and the deference afforded the sentencing court. United States v. Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d 1249, 1256 (11th Cir. 2015). Section 3553(a) mandates that the district court “shall im- pose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary,” to, inter alia, “reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, and provide just punishment for the offense,” adequately deter criminal conduct, and protect the public from further crimes of the defendant. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), (2)(A)-(D). In addition, the court must consider, in relevant part: the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; the kinds of sentences available; and the guideline sentencing range. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (1), (3)-(4). The court can also consider, among USCA11 Case: 21-11077 Date Filed: 09/21/2022 Page: 4 of 5

4 Opinion of the Court 21-11077

other things, the defendant’s lack of remorse. United States v. McNair, 605 F.3d 1152, 1231 (11th Cir. 2010). While the district court must consider each § 3553(a) factor, it need not discuss each factor specifically and its statement that it considered the factors is sufficient. Goldman, 953 F.3d at 1222. The failure to discuss mitigating evidence does not indicate that the court “erroneously ignored or failed to consider [the mitigating] evidence.” United States v. Amedeo, 487 F.3d 823, 833 (11th Cir. 2007) (quotation marks omitted). The weight that each § 3553(a) factor receives is a matter within the sound discretion of the district court. United States v. Williams, 526 F.3d 1312, 1323 (11th Cir. 2008); Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d at 1254 (the district court can place great weight on one factor over others). Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it considered the § 3553(a) factors. The court put great weight on the nature of Denson’s offense conduct and emphasized that he con- tinued to carry drugs and a firearm even after being arrested 8 months before the conduct in this case. It also considered how his drug dealing endangered other peoples’ lives, and that he lacked remorse. Even if it did not discuss his childhood and drug addic- tion, it did not need to specifically discuss his mitigating evidence. Also, it acknowledged the death in his family, but it expressed con- cern that his drug dealing endangered other people’s lives. Alt- hough it did not explicitly consider each of the § 3553(a) factors, it did not have to, and it stated that it considered the sentencing fac- tors. Thus, the nature and dangerousness of Denson’s offense USCA11 Case: 21-11077 Date Filed: 09/21/2022 Page: 5 of 5

21-11077 Opinion of the Court 5

conduct, and his lack of remorse supports the upward variance. Ac- cordingly, we affirm. AFFIRMED.