U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, 2025

United States v. Quavon Hires

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Decided October 9, 2025

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 25-12400 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 10/09/2025 Page: 1 of 5

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-12400 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiﬀ-Appellee, versus QUAVON HIRES, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cr-20712-KMM-1 ____________________ Before JILL PRYOR, BRASHER, and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: Quavon Hires appeals his 11-month imprisonment sentence for the revocation of his supervised release for associating with a person who was a convicted felon without permission. He asserts USCA11 Case: 25-12400 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 10/09/2025 Page: 2 of 5

2 Opinion of the Court 25-12400 the district court erred at sentencing by considering erroneous facts and placing undue emphasis on his criminal history. Specifically, he contends the court relied on the incorrect assumptions that (1) the only time he did not commit a crime was when he was in prison; (2) he had a gun related to his violation of supervised re- lease; and (3) the community needed protection from him based on his “affection for firearms.” He also contends the court placed undue emphasis on his pre-and post-incarceration criminal history without considering that he was a rehabilitated man. After review, we affirm.1 We review the reasonableness of a sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release for an abuse of discretion using a two-step process. United States v. Gomez, 955 F.3d 1250, 1255 (11th Cir. 2020). We ﬁrst look at whether the district court committed any signiﬁcant procedural error, such as selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts. Id. Then we look at whether the sen- tence is substantively reasonable. Id. A. Procedural Error There is no evidence the court relied on erroneous facts in making its sentencing determination. In fact, the court itself ex- pressly disclaimed any reliance on the allegations related to the dis- missed violations including Hires’ alleged possession of a firearm.

The district court stated “the only thing I’m relying on is what he pled guilty to . . . . That’s it, short and sweet.” The district court

1 We DENY Hires’ motion to discharge counsel and proceed pro se.

USCA11 Case: 25-12400 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 10/09/2025 Page: 3 of 5

25-12400 Opinion of the Court 3 should be taken at its word. See United States v. Curtin, 78 F.4th 1299, 1313 (11th Cir. 2023) (stating when a district court expressly disclaims reliance on a fact at sentencing, we take the district court at its word). As to the other statements Hires complains of, such as the comments about his inability to not commit crimes while out of prison and his “affection for firearms”—these are not facts.

Rather, these were characterizations the court provided to express its perspectives on the case.

Even assuming, arguendo, that the court relied on erroneous facts, the error was harmless because it did not substantially affect the ultimate sentence imposed. See id. (explaining a district court’s consideration of an impermissible factor at sentencing is harmless if the record as a whole shows the error did not substantially affect the selection of the sentence imposed). There was evidence of Hires’ extensive criminal history before the court at sentencing, and several § 3553(a) 2 factors require its weighing, independent of

2 Section 3583(e) of Title 18 governs the discretionary revocation of supervised release and permits the district court to revoke a term of supervised release after considering the factors set forth in § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C), (a)(2)(D), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6), and (a)(7). 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). These purposes include the need to deter criminal conduct and protect the public from the defendant’s future crimes. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(B)–(C). In imposing a par- ticular sentence, the court must also consider the offense’s nature and circum- stances, the defendant’s history and characteristics, the applicable Guidelines range, Sentencing Commission policy statements, the need to avoid unwar- ranted sentencing disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct, and the need to provide restitution to any of the defendant’s victims. Id. § 3553(a)(1), (4)–(7).

USCA11 Case: 25-12400 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 10/09/2025 Page: 4 of 5

4 Opinion of the Court 25-12400 any erroneous fact. The record shows that the district court was primarily concerned with Hires’ history and characteristics and protecting the public.

B. Substantive Reasonableness We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence un- der a deferential abuse of discretion standard considering the total- ity of the circumstances. United States v. King, 57 F.4th 1334, 1337 (11th Cir. 2023). The party challenging the sentence bears the bur- den of establishing that it is unreasonable based on the facts of the case and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Id. at 1337-38. A district court abuses its considerable discretion and imposes a substantively unreasonable sentence only when it “(1) fails to aﬀord considera- tion to relevant factors that were due signiﬁcant weight, (2) gives signiﬁcant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or (3) com- mits a clear error of judgment in considering the proper factors.” Id. at 1338 (quotations and alterations omitted). We give due def- erence to the district court’s consideration and weighing of the rel- evant sentencing factors. Id. As to the weighing of Hires’ criminal history, it was not sub- stantively unreasonable because it was within the district court’s considerable discretion. Several § 3553(a) factors the court must consider directly implicate criminal history. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1) (defendant’s history and characteristics); § 3553(a)(2)(B) (affording adequate deterrence); § 3553(a)(2)(C) (protecting the public from further crimes of defendant); see also United States v. Sweeting, 437 F.3d 1105, 1106-07 (11th Cir. 2005) USCA11 Case: 25-12400 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 10/09/2025 Page: 5 of 5

25-12400 Opinion of the Court 5 (holding the district court properly considered defendant’s criminal history and his threat to the public in arriving at his revocation sen- tence). The court noted its specific concerns about protecting the public from a defendant who appeared to be a consistent recidivist any time he was not incarcerated, specifically pointing to the § 3553(a)(1) factor of the history and characteristics of the defend- ant. Thus, Hires fails to show how the district court gave signifi- cant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor when it weighed his criminal history. Hires’ sentence is not substantively unreason- able.

AFFIRMED.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.