United States v. Josiah Bennett

── United States v. Josiah Bennett ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: May 21, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 25-13198 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 05/21/2026 Page: 1 of 7 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-13198 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JOSIAH BENNETT, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 0:24-cr-60084-MD-1 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 25-13198 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 05/21/2026 Page: 2 of 7 2 Opinion of the Court 25-13198 Before LUCK, LAGOA, and DUBINA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Appellant Josiah Bennett appeals his total sentence of 190 months’ imprisonment with 3 years of supervised release for car- jacking and using a firearm in relation to a crime of violence. Ben- nett argues that the district court imposed a substantively unrea- sonable sentence by disregarding his need for rehabilitation, impos- ing a sentence that was greater than necessary, and giving insuffi- cient weight to his mitigating evidence, such as his young age, trau- matic childhood, and vulnerability to violence while incarcerated. Having reviewed the record and read the parties’ briefs, we affirm Bennett’s sentence. I. We lack jurisdiction to review the merits of a district court’s refusal to grant a downward departure where it understood its au- thority to depart downward but chose not to depart. United States v. Rodriguez, 34 F.4th 961, 975 (11th Cir. 2022). When nothing in the record indicates otherwise, we will assume that the district court understood it had the authority to depart downward, thus precluding review. United States v. Dudley, 463 F.3d 1221, 1228 (11th Cir. 2006). When reviewing a sentence for substantive reasonableness, we consider the totality of the circumstances and whether the sen- tence achieves the statutory sentencing purposes stated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). The USCA11 Case: 25-13198 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 05/21/2026 Page: 3 of 7 25-13198 Opinion of the Court 3 district court is deemed to have abused its discretion when it “(1) fails to afford consideration to relevant factors that were due signif- icant weight, (2) gives significant weight to an improper or irrele- vant factor, or (3) commits a clear error of judgment in considering the proper factors.” United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1189 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (quotation marks omitted). The party chal- lenging the sentence bears the burden to show that it is unreason- able considering the record and the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). United States v. Tome, 611 F.3d 1371, 1378 (11th Cir. 2010). II. The district court must impose a sentence “sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes” of § 3553(a)(2), including the need to reflect the seriousness of the of- fense, promote the respect for