USCA11 Case: 22-12030 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 11/02/2023 Page: 1 of 7

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 22-12030 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus KEIVON MCBRIDE,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 0:21-cr-60095-RAR-1 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 22-12030 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 11/02/2023 Page: 2 of 7

Before NEWSOM, GRANT, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: Keivon McBride, proceeding with counsel, challenges his below-guideline 480-months sentence for the production of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), and distribution of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2). In par- ticular, he contends that the district court committed procedural error in imposing the sentence and that the sentence itself is sub- stantively unreasonable. Because no reversible error has been shown, we affirm McBride’s sentence.

I McBride pleaded guilty to production of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), and distribution of child pornog- raphy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2). The probation officer’s Presentence Investigation Report (PSI) assigned McBride a total- offense level of 43 1 and a criminal-history category of I. Based on McBride’s criminal-history category, total-offense level, and the ap- plicable statutory-maximum sentence, McBride’s guidelines term of imprisonment was 3,840 months. See U.S.S.G. § 5G1.2(b).

At the sentencing hearing, the district court accepted the PSI’s calculation of the applicable guidelines range. After

USCA11 Case: 22-12030 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 11/02/2023 Page: 3 of 7

22-12030 Opinion of the Court 3 considering the parties’ arguments at sentencing, the totality of the circumstances, and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, the district court sentenced McBride to 480 months’ imprisonment.

This Court must first ensure that the district court commit- ted no significant procedural error, such as failing to calculate or improperly calculating the guideline range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). If the court’s sentencing decision is procedurally sound, this Court then considers the substantive reasonableness of the sen- tence. Id. We consider the substantive reasonableness of a sen- tence under a deferential abuse of discretion standard. 2 United States v. Butler, 39 F.4th 1349, 1354–55 (11th Cir. 2022). In review- ing the reasonableness of a sentence, we will not substitute our own judgment for that of the district court and will affirm a sen- tence so long as the court’s decision was “in the ballpark of permis- sible outcomes.” Id. at 1355 (citation omitted). The defendant bears the burden of showing that the sentence is unreasonable in light of the record and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. United States v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319, 1324 (11th Cir. 2008).

2 The government contends that McBride’s procedural-error argument should be reviewed only for plain error because McBride never expressly raised the specific objections he now makes on appeal. We need not decide this issue, however, because we conclude that McBride’s argument fails under an abuse- of-discretion standard.

USCA11 Case: 22-12030 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 11/02/2023 Page: 4 of 7

A McBride first argues that the district court committed pro- cedural error in imposing his sentence. A district court commits procedural error when it incorrectly calculates the guidelines range, treats the guidelines as mandatory, fails to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, selects a sentence based on clearly errone- ous facts, or fails to explain the chosen sentence. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d at 1323; Gall,552 U.S. at 51. McBride contends, in particular, that the district court did not consider the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and failed to explain its chosen sentence.

McBride failed to demonstrate that the district court com- mitted procedural error. The court explicitly stated that it consid- ered the statements of all parties, the PSI, and the § 3553(a) factors.

See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; Butler, 39 F.4th at 1356 (“[A] district court’s acknowledgement that it has considered the § 3553(a) factors and the parties’ arguments is sufficient.”); Tr. of Sentencing, Doc. 53 at 46. It also provided an adequate explanation for McBride’s total sentence by discussing the relevant sentencing data it reviewed to avoid nationwide sentencing disparities, the unique nature and cir- cumstances of his offenses, his lack of criminal history, the sexual abuse he endured, the need to promote respect for the law and gen- eral deterrence due to the seriousness of his offenses, and the need USCA11 Case: 22-12030 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 11/02/2023 Page: 5 of 7

22-12030 Opinion of the Court 5 to stop abuse of young women via social media. See Tr. of Sentenc- ing, Doc. 53 at 36–45; Gall, 552 U.S. at 46–47, 50–51; Butler, 39 F.4th at 1356. Therefore, the court demonstrated that it properly weighed the relevant § 3553(a) factors. See § 3553(a); Butler, 39 F.4th at 1356.

B McBride next challenges his sentence as substantively unrea- sonable. When reviewing a sentence for its substantive reasona- bleness, we consider the “totality of the circumstances,” “including . . . whether the statutory factors in § 3553(a) support the sentence in question.” Gonzalez, 550 F.3d at 1324. “The party challenging the sentence bears the burden of establishing that the sentence is unreasonable in light of the record and the § 3553(a) factors.”

United States v. Early, 686 F.3d 1219, 1221 (11th Cir. 2012).

Under § 3553(a), the district court must impose a sentence that is sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to reflect the pur- poses of § 3553(a)(2), including the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, to provide just punishment, to afford adequate deterrence, and to pro- tect the public from further crimes of the defendant. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Additionally, the court must consider, among other fac- tors, the nature and circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant, and the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among similarly situated defendants. Id. We will not vacate a sentence on substantive-reasonableness grounds unless “we are left with the definite and firm conviction that the USCA11 Case: 22-12030 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 11/02/2023 Page: 6 of 7

22-12030 Opinion of the Court 7 46–47, 50–51. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discre- tion by imposing McBride’s sentence.

AFFIRMED.