Full Opinion

USCA11 Case: 25-14542 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 11/13/2026 Page: 1 of 5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-14542 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JAMES DOUGLAS ADKINS, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 5:24-cr-00043-MTT-CHW-1 ____________________ Before JILL PRYOR, LUCK, and WILSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Defendant-Appellant James Adkins, Jr. appeals his sentence of 115-months’ imprisonment for a conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. First, he argues that the district court erred USCA11 Case: 25-14542 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 11/13/2026 Page: 2 of 5 2 Opinion of the Court 25-14542 in applying the obstruction of justice enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. Second, he asserts that the court erred in denying a reduc- tion for acceptance of responsibility under § 3E1.1. The govern- ment argues that even if the court erred in its determination as to applying the obstruction of justice enhancement and denying the reduction for acceptance of responsibility, this court can affirm be- cause the district court stated it would have imposed the same sen- tence. When a defendant challenges the procedural reasonableness of his sentence by arguing an improper guideline calculation, we may affirm without reaching the procedural arguments if the dis- trict court makes a Keene finding. United States v. Keene, 470 F.3d 1347, 1349–50 (11th Cir. 2006). A district court makes a Keene find- ing when it expressly states that it would impose the same sentence regardless of the procedural issue. Id. at 1349. Here, as an initial matter, the court made a clear Keene find- ing. When pronouncing the sentence, the court stated that even if it had not overruled Adkins’ objections so that the court would have been dealing with a lower guideline range, it “would have var- ied up to the current sentence of 115 months based on the” § 3553(a) factors. When a Keene finding is made, we assume that the guidelines issue should have been decided the way the defendant argued, ap- USCA11 Case: 25-14542 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 11/13/2026 Page: 3 of 5 25-14542 Opinion of the Court 3 ply the new range, and then analyze the resulting substantive rea- sonableness under the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. 1 Keene, 470 F.3d at 1349–50. If the sentence is substantively reasonable even with the lower guideline range, affirmance is proper under Keene with- out reaching the procedural issues. Id. at 1350. We use an abuse of discretion standard when reviewing for substantive reasonable- ness. United States v. Sotelo, 130 F.4th 1229, 1244 (11th Cir. 2025). A district court abuses its considerable discretion only when “it (1) fails to afford consideration to relevant factors that were due significant weight, (2) gives significant weight to an improper or ir- relevant factor, or (3) commits a clear error of judgment in consid- ering the proper factors.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). The dis- trict court does not have to give all the factors equal weight. United States v. Olson, 127 F.4th 1266, 1276 (11th Cir. 2025). Here, Adkins fails to show that the district court abused its discretion in its 115-month sentence. He has not shown that his sentence is substantively unreasonable, even with a hypothetical 1 The district court must order a sentence that reflects the seriousness of the offense, promotes respect for the law, provides just punishment for the of- fense, deters criminal conduct, protects the public from future crimes of the defendant, and provides the defendant with any needed training and treat- ment in the most effective manner. United States v. Kuhlman, 711 F.3d 1321, 1327 (11th Cir. 2013); 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A)–(D). The district court must consider various factors in imposing a sentence, including: the nature of the offense, the defendant’s history, the kinds of sentences available, the advisory guidelines range, policy statements, restitution, and avoiding unwarranted sentencing disparities. Kuhlman, 711 F.3d at 1327; 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (3)– (7). USCA11 Case: 25-14542 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 11/13/2026 Page: 4 of 5 4 Opinion of the Court 25-14542 Keene advisory range. Assuming the procedural objections were sustained in his favor, the ultimate sentence would only have been a 37-month upward variance from the resulting guidelines range of 63 to 78 months. When imposing an upward variance, the sentencing court must provide a justification compelling enough to support the de- gree of the variance and complete enough to allow for meaningful appellate review. United States v. Shaw, 560 F.3d 1230, 1238 (11th Cir. 2009). But the justification need not be extraordinary. Id. One indicator of reasonableness is whether the sentence falls well below the statutory maximum penalty. United States v. Goldman, 953 F.3d 1213, 1222 (11th Cir. 2020). The court did not abuse its discretion in imposing an upward variance because the degree of the variance was supported by a compelling justification. The court found that certain § 3553(a) fac- tors, 2 including certain aggravating factors such as Adkins’ exten- sive criminal history that included several violent crimes; the na- ture and circumstances of the offenses, which included Adkins pos- sessing a firearm despite knowing he could not as a felon and then 2 The court referenced the government’s sentencing memorandum which de- tailed these specific factors. While Adkins suggests that is insufficient to sup- port the alternative finding, we disagree because the court explained that it considered the § 3553(a) factors and referenced the government’s sentencing memorandum which identified various aggravating factors that the court found appropriate to support its variance. Thus, we can conduct a meaningful appellate review of the district court’s decision. United States v. Shaw, 560 F.3d 1230, 1238 (11th Cir. 2009). USCA11 Case: 25-14542 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 11/13/2026 Page: 5 of 5 25-14542 Opinion of the Court 5 asking others to lie about whose gun it was; and the need to reflect the seriousness of the offenses, promote respect for the law, and provide just punishment warranted a 115-month sentence and 37- month variance. Further, the resulting sentence remained well be- low the statutory maximum of 180 months’ imprisonment. Ac- cordingly, the sentence is substantively reasonable regardless of whether Adkins’ procedural objections are sustained. As such, af- firmance is proper on Keene without reaching the issue of whether the district court erred when it applied the obstruction of justice enhancement or denied the acceptance of responsibility reduction to Adkins’ sentence. AFFIRMED.