United States v. Trenton Watkins

USCA11 Case: 25-11084 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 08/21/2026 Page: 1 of 3

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-11084 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee, versus TRENTON EDWARD WATKINS,

Defendant- Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cr-00291-TFM-N-1 ____________________

Before LUCK, LAGOA, and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Trenton Watkins appeals his 24-month sentence following the revocation of his supervised release. He contends the district court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence because the

USCA11 Case: 25-11084 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 08/21/2026 Page: 2 of 3 2 Opinion of the Court 25-11084 sentence was inconsistent with the district court’s sympathetic warnings to him at the revocation hearing. After review, 1 we af- firm.

Upon finding by a preponderance of the evidence that a de- fendant has violated a condition of supervised release, a district court may revoke the term of supervised release and impose a term of imprisonment after considering certain factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). United States v. Sweeting, 437 F.3d 1105, 1107 (11th Cir. 2006). The relevant factors that a court must consider before im- posing a sentence upon revocation are: (1) the nature and circum- stances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the de- fendant; (2) the need for deterrence; (3) the need to protect the public from the defendant’s further crimes; (4) the need to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training or medical care; (5) the relevant Guidelines range; (6) the pertinent policy statements of the Sentencing Commission; (7) the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities; and (8) the need to pro- vide restitution to victims. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B)-(D), (a)(4)-(7)).

In considering the § 3553(a) factors at sentencing, the district court may attach greater weight to one factor over others. United States v. Williams, 526 F.3d 1312, 1322 (11th Cir. 2008). After the sentencing judge considers the arguments of both parties and the

USCA11 Case: 25-11084 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 08/21/2026 Page: 3 of 3 25-11084 Opinion of the Court 3 § 3553(a) factors, the judge may impose a sentence deviating from the Guidelines so long as they adequately explain the justification for the variance. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 50 (2007). We “must give due deference to the district court’s decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the variance.” Id. at 51.

Watkins failed to meet his burden of establishing that the district court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Tome, 611 F.3d 1371, 1378 (11th Cir. 2010) (stating the party challenging the sentence bears the burden to show it is unreasonable based on the § 3553(a) factors and the facts of the case). The district court emphasized Watkins’ need for anger man- agement training and the danger associated with domestic vio- lence. Watkins contends the district court failed to adequately weigh these issues as mitigating factors. However, it was not un- reasonable for the district court to place more weight on deter- rence and the protection of the public. See Williams, 526 F.3d at 1322; 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(2)(B), (C), 3583(e). Watkins was unde- terred by the previous 24-month sentence because both sentences imposed upon revocation of supervised released stemmed in part from Watkins' acts of domestic violence. See Williams, 526 F.3d at 1322. Additionally, the district court adequately explained the jus- tification for the upward variance of 12 months above Watkins’ ad- visory Guidelines range. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 50. Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.