United States v. Adon O. Hemley

── United States v. Adon O. Hemley ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: May 11, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 25-12628 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 05/11/2026 Page: 1 of 7 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-12628 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ADON O. HEMLEY, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 6:24-cr-00091-WWB-NWH-6 ____________________ Before NEWSOM, BRASHER, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Adon O. Hemley appeals his 46-month sentence for conspir- acy to defraud the United States, under 18 U.S.C. § 371, and aiding in the preparation and presentation of false tax returns, under USCA11 Case: 25-12628 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 05/11/2026 Page: 2 of 7 2 Opinion of the Court 25-12628 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2). On appeal, Hemley argues the district court procedurally erred by failing to adequately explain its sentence and not affording adequate consideration to his low risk of recidivism. After careful review, we affirm.1 I. We follow a “two-step process” when reviewing a sentence. United States v. Trailer, 827 F.3d 933, 935 (11th Cir. 2016). First, we review the sentence for procedural reasonableness, assessing “whether the district court committed any significant procedural error, such as miscalculating the advisory guideline range . . . , fail- ing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.” Id. at 936. Where a defendant fails to raise an issue before the district court, however, we review that issue only for plain error. United States v. Defilippis, __F.4th__, 2026 WL 1067115, at *10 & n.9 (11th Cir. Apr. 20, 2026). “To establish plain error, a defendant must show that there was an (1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.” United States v. Utsick, 45 F.4th 1325, 1332 (11th Cir. 2022). “Where all three conditions are met, we may then exercise our discretion to notice a forfeited error, but only if the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. 1 We write only for the parties, who are familiar with the facts, so we omit a lengthy recitation. USCA11 Case: 25-12628 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 05/11/2026 Page: 3 of 7 25-12628 Opinion of the Court 3 In the second step of our “two-step process,” we determine “whether the sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the § 3553(a) factors.” Trailer, 827 F.3d at 935–36. “We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for an abuse of discretion.” United States v. Butler, 39 F.4th 1349, 1354–55 (11th Cir. 2022); see also United States v. Beau- fils, 160 F.4th 1147, 1163 (11th Cir. 2025) (explaining “[t]his standard allows for a ‘range of choice for the district court,’ as long as that choice is not a ‘clear error of judgment’” (quoting Rasbury v. IRS (In