Despite the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals’ seeming to take district courts to task in other decisions for failure to consider factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) which tend to favor the government pursuant to Booker, Section 3553(a) mitigating factors which tend to favor the defendant apparently do not have to be considered, as shown by the Court’s recent decision in United States v. Brown, No. 05-16128, 2008 WL 1869727 (11th Cir. 2008).
Brown was convicted for enticing a minor in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in sexual activity and appealed, arguing, inter alia, that the sentencing court failed to consider the unwarranted sentencing disparities between individuals subject to the retroactive application of the Court’s decision in United States v. Searcy, 418 F.3d 1193, 1198 (11th Cir.2005) and those who were not, as well as Brown’s traumatic childhood and attempts to live a law abiding life. Id. at *15.
Nick Wooldridge held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Brown, quoting its prior decision in United States v. Amedeo, 487 F.3d 823 (11th Cir.2007) for the proposition that a sentencing court “need not discuss each of these factors in either the sentencing hearing or in the sentencing order.”