United States v. Daniel Hoss , 192 F. App'x 867 ( 2006 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-16540 AUGUST 9, 2006
Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 04-00131-CR-01-BBM-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DANIEL HOSS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
_________________________
(August 9, 2006)
Before MARCUS, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Daniel Hoss appeals his sentence of 260 months of imprisonment for sexual
crimes involving a minor. Hoss argues that his sentence is unreasonable because
the district court did not consider the necessary sentencing factors. 18 U.S.C. §
3553(a). We affirm.
Hoss was indicted and convicted on three counts: (1) using a means of
interstate commerce to entice a minor to engage in sexual activity, 18 U.S.C. §
2422(b); (2) crossing state lines with the intent to engage in sexual activity with a
child under the age of 12, id. 2241(c); (3) knowingly receiving and attempting to
receive child pornography, id. 2252. After the district court sustained Hoss’s
objection to the grouping of counts in the presentence investigation report, the
advisory guidelines range for Hoss’s sentence was 210 to 262 months of
imprisonment. At the sentencing hearing, members of Hoss’s family, Hoss’s
attorney, and Hoss spoke on his behalf. The district court thanked members of
Hoss’s family and described the statement of Hoss’s sister as “intelligent and
thoughtful.” The district court sentenced Hoss to 262 months of imprisonment.
We review a sentence imposed by the district court for reasonableness.
United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 785 (11th Cir. 2005). Our “[r]eview for
reasonableness is deferential.” Id. at 788. Hoss bears the burden of establishing
that his sentence is unreasonable in the light of the record and the sentencing
factors in section 3553(a). Id. “[O]rdinarily we would expect a sentence within
2
the guidelines range to be reasonable.” Id.Hoss raises two arguments on appeal. First, he argues that the district court
did not consider statements made at the sentencing hearing in Hoss’s defense by
his family, his attorney, and Hoss himself. This argument fails because the district
court need not discuss individually each sentencing factor as long as the district
court acknowledges that it considered the arguments of the defendant and the
factors listed in section 3553(a). Id. at 786; United States v. Scott, 426 F.3d 1324,
1329 (11th Cir. 2005). The district court stated specifically that it considered the
section 3553(a) factors and the district court permitted Hoss, his family, and his
attorney to speak. Nothing in the record that suggests the district court did not
consider the statements it heard immediately before it sentenced Hoss.
Second, Hoss argues that the district court did not give sufficient weight
Hoss’s background, his military service, his lack of a criminal history, and the
support of his family. These factors are all part of the “nature and circumstances of
the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant.” 18 U.S.C. §
3553(a)(1). The district court stated that it considered the section 3553(a) factors,
which included the factors listed by Hoss. Nothing in the record suggests the
district court did not consider all the factors.
The sentence is AFFIRMED.
3