United States v. Untarius Demont Alexander, 24-11677

Untarius D. Alexander was sentenced to 170 months for conspiracy to commit and attempted Hobbs Act robbery.
The sentence was imposed on remand after a prior appeal, resulting in a resentencing with a lower guideline range.
The district court gave a sentence at the top end of Alexander's original guideline range, representing a significant upward variance from the new guideline range.
Alexander appealed, arguing the sentence was substantively unreasonable given the downward adjustment in his guideline range.
The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the district court's sentence for substantive reasonableness under an abuse of discretion standard.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Substantive reasonableness of sentence	Alexander: Sentence is unreasonably high given new range	U.S.: Sentence justified by defendant's history	Sentence reasonable; no abuse of discretion

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (sets standard for reviewing substantive reasonableness of sentences)
United States v. Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir. 2015) (burden on challenger to show sentence is unreasonable)
United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160 (11th Cir. 2010) (standards for substantive reasonableness and variances)
United States v. Kuhlman, 711 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir. 2013) (discretion of district court in weighing sentencing factors)
United States v. Taylor, 997 F.3d 1348 (11th Cir. 2021) (no requirement to address every § 3553(a) factor explicitly)
United States v. Goldman, 953 F.3d 1213 (11th Cir. 2020) (sentence below max penalty supports reasonableness)