The opinion
USCA11 Case: 24-11031 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 03/05/2026 Page: 1 of 21
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 24-11031
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ANDREW FRANCOIS MARTIN,
a.k.a. Drew
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cr-20556-RKA-6
____________________
Before JILL PRYOR, NEWSOM, and KIDD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
After Andrew Francois Martin pleaded guilty to conspiracy
to commit Hobbs Act robbery, the district court sentenced him to
USCA11 Case: 24-11031 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 03/05/2026 Page: 2 of 21
2 Opinion of the Court 24-11031
210 months’ imprisonment with the sentence to run consecutively
to a Florida robbery sentence that Martin was already serving. On
appeal, he challenges the district court’s decision imposing a con-
secutive sentence. After careful consideration, we affirm.
I.
A federal grand jury returned an indictment charging Martin
and others with conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, in vio-
lation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a). The indictment alleged that the con-
spiracy ran from May 2016 through December 2017 and that the
object of the conspiracy was to steal controlled substances, money,
jewelry, and other property. For this crime, Martin faced a maxi-
mum sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a).
Martin pleaded guilty. He agreed that if the case had gone to
trial, the government would have proven beyond a reasonable
doubt that from May 2016 through December 2017 he conspired
with co-defendants Palacio Valdes Farley, Joassaint Aristil, Jr., and
others to commit Hobbs Act robbery.
He further agreed that the government would have proven
beyond a reasonable doubt that three robberies occurred. Martin
admitted to being involved in the first robbery, which occurred in
May 2016 when members of the conspiracy stole marijuana from
two drug suppliers, Justin Ziegler and William Merle, in Van Nuys,
California. Members of the conspiracy arranged to purchase
25 pounds of marijuana from Ziegler and Merle at Ziegler’s apart-
ment. Before the meeting, Martin and Farley traveled together by
airplane from Orlando to Van Nuys. During the meeting at
USCA11 Case: 24-11031 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 03/05/2026 Page: 3 of 21
24-11031 Opinion of the Court 3
Ziegler’s apartment, one member of the conspiracy left to retrieve
money from his car to purchase the drugs. Moments later, he re-
turned with another man, and they immediately began shooting.
Both Ziegler and Merle sustained gunshot wounds. Members of
the conspiracy stole more than 12 pounds of marijuana and fled
from the apartment. On the day of the robbery, a contact messaged
Martin that he had no more of a particular marijuana product. Mar-
tin responded that he was on his “way back down” to Florida “with
it.” Doc. 203 at 3. 1 The next day Martin flew back to Florida.
Martin admitted to committing a second robbery with Far-
ley in April 2017 in Daytona Beach, Florida. While in the parking
lot of a restaurant, they spotted Vladimir Gutierrez, a professional
baseball player, with his wife Yanetsi Cordova. Farley and Martin
noticed Gutierrez’s jewelry and expensive car, determined that he
was wealthy, and decided to rob him. They approached the couple
with their guns drawn. They took Gutierrez’s gold necklace, gold
pendant, watch, and wallet. During the robbery, the restaurant
owner came out with a gun. He shot at Martin and Farley, hitting
Martin in the left leg. Martin fired back at the owner, and Farley
and Martin fled from the scene.
Martin also admitted that co-conspirators committed a third
robbery in December 2017 in Orange County, California. Farley
and others robbed Stephen Keane, a drug supplier. During the rob-
bery, they bound and gagged Keane and his wife and stole
1 “Doc.” numbers refer to the district court’s docket entries.
USCA11 Case: 24-11031 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 03/05/2026 Page: 4 of 21
4 Opinion of the Court 24-11031
marijuana, cash, jewelry, watches, and other items. Although Mar-
tin agreed that the government would have proven beyond a rea-
sonable doubt that this robbery occurred, he did not admit to par-
ticipating in it.2
The district court accepted Martin’s guilty plea. At the time
of his plea, Martin was in state custody serving a sentence imposed
by a Florida court for the Daytona Beach robbery. In the state case,
Martin was convicted of robbery with a firearm, aggravated assault
with a deadly weapon, and possession of a firearm by a convicted
felon and received a total sentence of 25 years’ imprisonment. In
the plea agreement in the federal conspiracy case, Martin acknowl-
edged that the district court could direct that his federal sentence
run consecutively to the state sentence.
Before Martin’s sentencing hearing, a probation officer pre-
pared an initial presentence investigation report (“PSR”). The PSR
reported that the offense conduct included the Van Nuys robbery,
the Daytona Beach robbery, and the Orange County robbery. It
stated that Martin participated in the Van Nuys and Daytona Beach
robberies but not the Orange County one.
The PSR also identified a fourth robbery as part of the of-
fense conduct. It stated that in August 2016 Farley, Martin, Aristil,
Emmanuel White, and others carried out a plan to impersonate
2 In a recent opinion affirming Farley’s and Aristil’s convictions, we described
each of the three robberies in greater detail. See United States v. Nattiel, No. 24-
10954, 2026 WL 22065, at *3–7 (11th Cir. Jan. 5, 2026) (unpublished).
USCA11 Case: 24-11031 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 03/05/2026 Page: 5 of 21
24-11031 Opinion of the Court 5
federal law enforcement agents; kidnap drug dealer Gregory Tis-
dale; and then gain access to a stash house used by Tisdale and Eric
McNair, another drug dealer.
According to the PSR, to carry out this plan, the conspirators
purchased a tracking device that they attached to Tisdale’s Range
Rover. Late one night, they used the device to track Tisdale to an
apartment complex in Fort Lauderdale. They drove to the apart-
ment complex and found Tisdale sitting in the Range Rover’s
driver’s seat with a woman, Tiara Register, in the passenger’s seat.
Farley, Martin, and others ran to the Range Rover pretending to be
federal agents who were arresting Tisdale. Farley pointed a gun at
Tisdale and pulled him from the Range Rover’s driver’s seat to its
backseat. Martin jumped into the driver’s seat. Other co-conspira-
tors, including White, pulled Register from the Range Rover and
forced her into their vehicle.
Martin, with Farley and Tisdale in the backseat, drove the
Range Rover to the apartment that McNair and Tisdale used as a
stash house. Along the way, he picked up White. When they ar-
rived at the apartment, McNair was outside. He spotted them and
ran back inside the apartment. Tisdale attempted to flee. Farley and
White shot at Tisdale and then left him for dead. Farley, Martin,
and White chased McNair into the apartment. Tisdale, who was
still alive, crawled away, hid under bushes, and survived.
Farley, Martin, and White found McNair inside the apart-
ment. Farley killed McNair by shooting him. Farley, Martin, and
USCA11 Case: 24-11031 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 03/05/2026 Page: 6 of 21
6 Opinion of the Court 24-11031
White stole approximately $30,000 in cash and half a kilogram of
cocaine from the apartment.
After robbing the apartment, Farley, Martin, and White met
up with the other co-conspirators, who still had Register as a cap-
tive. When Farley saw Register, he handed Martin a gun and told
him to take her to a dead-end street near a canal and kill her. Reg-
ister was later found dead with two gunshot wounds to the head.
After its detailed narrative of the four robberies that made
up the offense conduct, the PSR computed Martin’s offense level.
To calculate the offense level, the PSR considered Martin’s conduct
in the May 2016 Van Nuys robbery, the August 2016 stash house
robbery and murders of Tisdale and Register, and the April 2017
Daytona Beach robbery. It reported that Martin’s total offense level
was 43.
The PSR also recounted Martin’s criminal history. Before he
turned 21, Martin had sustained three separate adult criminal con-
victions in Florida state court for: (1) attempted burglary of an oc-
cupied dwelling, (2) carrying a concealed weapon, and (3) robbery
without a firearm or weapon. Based on the sentences Martin re-
ceived for these convictions, the PSR assigned him a total of seven
criminal history points.
In addition, the PSR reported that Martin had 2017 Florida
criminal convictions for robbery with a firearm, aggravated assault
with a deadly weapon, and possession of a firearm by a convicted
felon, all arising out of the Daytona Beach robbery. Although Mar-
tin received a total sentence of 25 years’ imprisonment for these
USCA11 Case: 24-11031 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 03/05/2026 Page: 7 of 21
24-11031 Opinion of the Court 7
crimes, the PSR assigned the sentence zero criminal history points
because the sentence was imposed for conduct that was part of the
instant offense. See U.S. Sent’g Guidelines Manual § 4A1.2(a)(1).
With a total of seven criminal history points, the PSR assigned Mar-
tin to criminal history category IV.
Given a total offense level of 43 and a criminal history cate-
gory of IV, the PSR reported that Martin’s guidelines range was life
imprisonment. Because the statutory maximum sentence for con-
spiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery was 20 years, the PSR re-
duced his guidelines range to 240 months.
The PSR then addressed whether, under the Sentencing
Guidelines, Martin’s federal sentence should run concurrently or
consecutively with his 25-year Florida sentence. The PSR con-
cluded that because the Daytona Beach robbery was relevant con-
duct for the federal offense, § 5G1.3 of the Guidelines advised that
the sentences should run concurrently.
Both the government and Martin objected to the PSR. The
government challenged the PSR’s application of the Guidelines. It
asserted that because the Daytona Beach robbery was not relevant
conduct for the federal offense, § 5G1.3 was inapplicable, and the
Guidelines did not recommend a concurrent sentence.
The government alternatively argued that even if § 5G1.3
recommended a concurrent sentence, the court should exercise its
discretion, and, based on the sentencing factors set forth at
USCA11 Case: 24-11031 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 03/05/2026 Page: 8 of 21
8 Opinion of the Court 24-11031
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), 3 impose a consecutive sentence. It urged the
court to consider Martin’s conduct from August 2016 when he
robbed Tisdale and McNair’s stash house and murdered Register.
It argued that Martin was a “cold-blooded killer” who executed
Register by shooting her twice in the head simply because she was
an “innocent witness, who was in the wrong place at the wrong
time.” Doc. 293 at 8. It also pointed out that after murdering Reg-
ister, Martin continued to engage in criminal activity with Farley
when he participated in the Daytona Beach robbery and shot at the
restaurant owner. The government argued that several of the
§ 3553(a) factors—including the circumstances of the offense as
well as the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the
offense, promote respect for the law, provide just punishment, af-
ford adequate deterrence, and protect the public—supported im-
posing a consecutive sentence.
3 Under § 3553(a), a district court is required to impose a sentence that is “suf-
ficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes” of the
statute. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). These purposes include the need to: reflect the
seriousness of the offense; promote respect for the law; provide just punish-
ment; deter criminal conduct; protect the public from the defendant’s future
criminal conduct; and effectively provide the defendant with educational or
vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment. Id.
§ 3553(a)(2). The court must also consider the nature and circumstances of the
offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant, the kinds of sentences
available, the applicable guidelines range, the pertinent policy statements of
the Sentencing Commission, the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing dis-
parities, and the need to provide restitution to victims. Id. § 3553(a)(1), (3)–(7).
USCA11 Case: 24-11031 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 03/05/2026 Page: 9 of 21
24-11031 Opinion of the Court 9
Martin objected to the PSR’s paragraphs that described the
August 2016 robbery of Tisdale and McNair’s stash house and the
murders of Tisdale and Register. He argued that this incident did
not qualify as relevant conduct for the federal conspiracy offense
and noted that the factual proffer that was part of the plea agree-
ment made no reference to this incident.
Martin further argued that the § 3553(a) factors did not sup-
port a consecutive sentence. He acknowledged that the court had
discretion to impose a concurrent or consecutive sentence. He
urged the court to impose a concurrent sentence so that he would
not be “sentenced twice” for the Daytona Beach robbery. Doc. 301
at 5.
At the sentencing hearing, the district court considered the
parties’ objections. It began with whether the Daytona Beach rob-
bery qualified as relevant conduct under the Guidelines. The court
had presided over Farley and Aristil’s criminal trial. Based on its
observations from their trial, the court found that the Daytona
Beach robbery was not part of the conspiracy charged in the case.
It stated that Martin and Farley “spontaneously” came up with the
plan to rob Gutierrez when they saw him exiting a restaurant
“wearing a lot of very expensive jewelry and driving a very fancy
car.” Doc. 434 at 7. The court determined that this robbery was not
relevant conduct for the federal offense, which involved a different
conspiracy “to steal from drug dealers.” Id.
After concluding that the Daytona Beach robbery was not
relevant conduct, the court considered the government’s
USCA11 Case: 24-11031 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 03/05/2026 Page: 10 of 21
10 Opinion of the Court 24-11031
objections to the PSR’s recommendation that under § 5G1.3 Mar-
tin’s federal sentence should run concurrently with his state sen-
tence. The court sustained the objection, stating § “5G1.3 just
doesn’t apply here, because the Daytona Beach robbery is a totally
separate course of conduct.” Id. at 8. But the court stated that it
would consider the Daytona Beach robbery when weighing the
§ 3553(a) factors. In addition, because the Daytona Beach robbery
was “not part of the instant offense,” the court concluded that Mar-
tin’s Florida sentence arising out of the robbery scored three crim-
inal history points. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2 As a result, Martin’s criminal
history score was 10, and he was in criminal history category V.
The court then addressed Martin’s objection that it could
not consider the August 2016 incident involving the stash house
robbery and the murders of McNair and Register when calculating
his guidelines range. The government introduced documentary ev-
idence, including witness statements from Aristil and others, to es-
tablish that Martin participated in the planning and carrying out of
the stash house robbery and shot Register. The court found that
the government established by a preponderance of the evidence,
but not beyond a reasonable doubt, that Martin was party to a con-
spiracy to rob the stash house and shot Register. After making these
findings, the court announced that it would not consider this inci-
dent when calculating Martin’s guidelines range but would con-
sider the incident when weighing the § 3553(a) factors.
After making these rulings and resolving other objections,
the court calculated Martin’s revised guidelines range without
USCA11 Case: 24-11031 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 03/05/2026 Page: 11 of 21
24-11031 Opinion of the Court 11
considering either the Daytona Beach robbery or the August 2016
stash house robbery and murders. It determined that Martin’s total
offense level was 29 and his criminal history category was V, which
yielded a guidelines range of 140 to 175 months’ imprisonment.
After calculating the guidelines range, the court returned to
§ 5G1.3. It reiterated that because the Daytona Beach robbery was
“not a part of this conspiracy” and “not relevant conduct,” § 5G1.3
did not apply. Doc. 434 at 14. But even if this provision recom-
mended a concurrent sentence, the court explained that it retained
discretion, which it intended to exercise, to impose a consecutive
sentence. After stating that it intended to impose a consecutive sen-
tence, it acknowledged that the parties had not yet addressed the
§ 3553(a) factors, saying “we’ll get to that later.” Id. at 24.
Later in the hearing, the court gave the parties an oppor-
tunity to address the § 3553(a) factors. The government requested
a sentence of 240 months’ imprisonment, the statutory maximum,
with the sentence to run consecutively to Martin’s state sentence.
Both Register’s mother and McNair’s sister addressed the court,
speaking about their deceased loved ones and how the murders im-
pacted their families.
Martin’s attorney asked the court to impose a sentence of
175 months, which was within the applicable guidelines range. He
asked the court to consider that Martin had been controlled and
manipulated by Farley. He also argued that Martin should receive
a sentence below the statutory maximum because, unlike his co-
defendants, he had accepted responsibility by pleading guilty.
USCA11 Case: 24-11031 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 03/05/2026 Page: 12 of 21
12 Opinion of the Court 24-11031
When discussing the § 3553(a) factors, Martin’s attorney acknowl-
edged that the court had already stated that the federal sentence
would run consecutively to the state sentence. The court said that
it had considered giving a concurrent sentence, but it was “just not
going to do it.” Id. at 47.
The court gave Martin an opportunity to allocute. He apol-
ogized. He stated that he had spent the past seven years in state
prison for the Daytona Beach robbery and described how, while
incarcerated, he had participated in rehabilitation programs and
was trying to improve himself.
After Martin spoke, the court announced that it was impos-
ing a 210-month sentence, which would run consecutively to the
state sentence. It addressed at length the § 3553(a) factors. It ex-
plained that Martin’s criminal conduct in the charged conspiracy
was “very serious.” Id. at 49. It focused on the circumstances of the
Van Nuys robbery, which included a dangerous shooting. The
court found, based on the “vivid and gruesome testimony” from
the trial of Martin’s codefendants, that Martin was present and
shooting during the robbery. Id.
The court then addressed Martin’s history and characteris-
tics. It reviewed his criminal history, including the Florida state
court conviction for the Daytona Beach robbery. The court de-
scribed Martin’s conduct during this robbery, which included Mar-
tin shooting at the restaurant owner, as “very serious.” Id. at 51.
The court also discussed the August 2016 stash house robbery and
murders of McNair and Register. It found Martin had shot and
USCA11 Case: 24-11031 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 03/05/2026 Page: 13 of 21
24-11031 Opinion of the Court 13
killed Register. 4 It stated that the 210-month sentence was “driven
mostly by [Martin’s] criminal history, including the robbery in Day-
tona Beach and also the robbery in . . . Van Nuys and the two
shootings in those two cases.” Id. at 52. The court also explained
that it “cannot ignore the . . . robberies of McNair and Tisdale and
the killings of [] Register and [] McNair.” Id.
The court discussed the need for specific deterrence and to
protect the public from Martin’s future crimes. It stated that he had
engaged in a “repeated course of violent conduct” and observed
that “several times state court judges have been lenient with [him],
placed him on probation, and he has repaid that leniency by con-
tinuously violating the terms of his probation.” Id.
The court also considered the need to provide for general
deterrence, just punishment, and promote respect for the law. It
stated that it was “important for people in our community to know
that these crimes, especially when coupled with a criminal history
category of this seriousness, are serious, that they are unacceptable,
and that if you are caught and convicted, you will be punished.” Id.
at 53.
The court addressed the need to avoid unwarranted sen-
tencing disparities. It explained that, unlike his codefendants, Mar-
tin had pleaded guilty. Given the plea, the court determined that
4 The court found that Farley had shot and killed McNair.
USCA11 Case: 24-11031 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 03/05/2026 Page: 14 of 21
14 Opinion of the Court 24-11031
he should receive a sentence shorter than the statutory maximum
of 240 months.5
The court explained why it rejected Martin’s request for a
175-month sentence. It found this sentence too short “given the ex-
treme degrees of violence [and] repeated course of criminal con-
duct that [] Martin has displayed through the years.” Id. at 53–54
After announcing the sentence, the court stated that even if
its computation of the guidelines was wrong and even if it did not
consider the August 2016 stash house robbery and murders of Reg-
ister and McNair when weighing the § 3553(a) factors, it would
have “come up with the exact same sentence.” Id. at 57. It explained
that it would have imposed the same sentence based solely on Mar-
tin’s conduct in the Van Nuys and Daytona Beach robberies. After
the court announced the sentence, Martin raised no objection to
the court’s findings of facts or the way the sentence was pro-
nounced.
This is Martin’s appeal.
II.
“We review a district court’s interpretation of the Sentenc-
ing Guidelines and application of the Guidelines to the facts de
5 On the same day Martin was sentenced, the court sentenced Farley and Aris-
til. The court sentenced Farley to 240 months’ imprisonment with the sen-
tence to run consecutively to a separate 14-year sentence he was already serv-
ing. And it sentenced Aristil to 200 months’ imprisonment with the sentence
to run consecutively to a separate 122-month sentence he was already serving.
USCA11 Case: 24-11031 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 03/05/2026 Page: 15 of 21
24-11031 Opinion of the Court 15
novo, and we review the district court’s findings of fact for clear
error.” United States v. Dimitrovski, 782 F.3d 622, 628 (11th Cir.
2015).
We review sentencing issues raised for the first time on ap-
peal for plain error. United States v. Corbett, 921 F.3d 1032, 1037
(11th Cir. 2019). To establish plain error, a defendant must show:
(1) an error, (2) that is “plain,” (3) that “affects substantial rights,”
and (4) that “seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public repu-
tation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. Lejarde-Rada,
319 F.3d 1288, 1290 (11th Cir. 2003) (citation modified)
III.
On appeal, Martin argues that the district court erred when
it ordered his sentence to run consecutively, not concurrently, with
his Florida sentence for the Daytona Beach robbery. He says that
the district court erred in concluding that the Daytona Beach rob-
bery was not relevant conduct in the federal conspiracy case and
that the Sentencing Guidelines did not recommend a concurrent
sentence. He also argues that the district court erred because it
failed to give him an opportunity to allocute before announcing
that it was imposing a consecutive sentence. We address each issue
in turn.
A.
When a defendant is sentenced to a term of imprisonment
and is “already subject to an undischarged term of imprisonment,”
a court may direct that the new term of imprisonment will “run
concurrently or consecutively” with the earlier sentence. 18 U.S.C.
USCA11 Case: 24-11031 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 03/05/2026 Page: 16 of 21
16 Opinion of the Court 24-11031
§ 3584(a). As the Supreme Court has explained, judges have “dis-
cretion to select whether the sentences they impose will run con-
currently or consecutively with . . . [sentences] that have been im-
posed in other proceedings, including state proceedings.” Setser v.
United States, 566 U.S. 231, 236 (2012).
The Sentencing Guidelines provide guidance to a district
court faced with deciding whether to impose a concurrent or con-
secutive sentence. Section 5G1.3 states that if “a term of imprison-
ment resulted from another offense that is relevant conduct to the
instant offense of conviction” under § 1B1.3 of the Guidelines, “the
sentence for the instant offense shall be imposed . . . to run concur-
rently to the remainder of the undischarged term of imprison-
ment.” U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(b).
When a defendant is currently serving a state criminal sen-
tence, a district court must consider § 5G1.3. United States v. Henry,
1 F.4th 1315, 1322 (11th Cir. 2021). But even when § 5G1.3(b) rec-
ommends a concurrent sentence, the district court retains discre-
tion to order the federal sentence to run consecutively to the state
sentence. After all, § 5G1.3, like all Guidelines provisions, is advi-
sory. See id. at 1326 (“Courts must consider the advice of
§ 5G1.3(b)(1), of course, but they have no obligation to impose a
sentence consistent with that section’s directive.”).
Here, Martin challenges the district court’s application of
§ 5G1.3(b). As an initial matter, he asserts that the district court
failed to conduct the analysis required under § 5G1.3. We disagree.
The record reflects that the court considered § 5G1.3 and
USCA11 Case: 24-11031 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 03/05/2026 Page: 17 of 21
24-11031 Opinion of the Court 17
concluded that it did not apply because Martin’s state sentence
arose out of the Daytona Beach robbery, which was not relevant
conduct for the federal offense.
Martin also argues on appeal that the district court’s
§ 5G1.3(b) analysis was flawed. He says that the Daytona Beach
robbery qualified as relevant conduct under the Sentencing Guide-
lines and thus § 5G1.3(b) advised that his federal sentence should
run concurrently with the state sentence.
We need not decide whether the district court erred in con-
cluding that the Daytona Beach robbery was not relevant conduct
for the conspiracy in this case and that § 5G1.3(b) did not apply be-
cause any error was harmless. It is well-established that when “a
decision either way” on a sentencing issue “will not affect the out-
come,” it is unnecessary for us to decide it. United States v. Keene,
470 F.3d 1347, 1348 (11th Cir. 2006). We need not review a sentenc-
ing issue when “(1) the district court states it would have imposed
the same sentence, even absent an alleged error, and (2) the sen-
tence is substantively reasonable.” United States v. Goldman,
953 F.3d 1213, 1221 (11th Cir. 2020).
Here, the parties agree that the district court made a Keene
statement. As Martin acknowledges, the court stated on the record
that it would have imposed the same sentence even if it had re-
solved the guidelines issue in his favor. We thus must consider the
substantive reasonableness of Martin’s 210-month consecutive sen-
tence.
USCA11 Case: 24-11031 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 03/05/2026 Page: 18 of 21
18 Opinion of the Court 24-11031
“We review all sentences—whether inside, just outside, or
significantly outside the Guidelines range—under a deferential
abuse-of-discretion standard.” Henry, 1 F.4th at 1327 (citation mod-
ified). When reviewing the substantive reasonableness of a sen-
tence, we consider the totality of the circumstances. Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). In imposing a sentence, the district
court must consider all the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a),
“but it may give greater weight to some factors over others or even
attach great weight to a single factor.” United States v. Gruskho,
50 F.4th 1, 19 (11th Cir. 2022). We will vacate a sentence only if we
are “left with the definite and firm conviction that the district court
committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the § 3553(a) fac-
tors by arriving at a sentence that lies outside the range of reason-
able sentences dictated by the facts of the case.” United States v. Irey,
612 F.3d 1160, 1190 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (citation modified).
It is well established that a court may vary from the Sentenc-
ing Guidelines based on the § 3553(a) factors. See Gall, 552 U.S. at
49–50. When deciding to vary from the Guidelines, a district court
“may consider conduct that [it already] considered in calculating
the defendant’s advisory guidelines range.” United States v. Moran,
778 F.3d 942, 983 (11th Cir. 2015). It also may consider uncharged
conduct that was not relied upon in calculating the guidelines
range. United States v. Owens, 96 F.4th 1316, 1321 (11th Cir. 2024).
As we have recognized, “uncharged conduct can be directly ger-
mane to several § 3553(a) factors,” including “the history and char-
acteristics of the defendant, and the need for the sentence to pro-
mote respect for the law, afford adequate deterrence to criminal
USCA11 Case: 24-11031 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 03/05/2026 Page: 19 of 21
24-11031 Opinion of the Court 19
conduct, and protect the public from further crimes of the defend-
ant.” Id. (citation modified). A district court may consider un-
charged conduct “so long as the government proves such conduct
by a preponderance of the evidence.” United States v. Wilson,
788 F.3d 1298, 1317 (11th Cir. 2015).
After evaluating the record in this case, we are not left with
the definite and firm conviction that the district court committed a
clear error of judgment when it weighed the § 3553(a) factors and
imposed a consecutive, not concurrent, sentence. Here, the district
court carefully, thoughtfully, and thoroughly addressed the
§ 3553(a) factors and explained why they supported a consecutive
sentence. The court’s findings from the sentencing hearing show
that Martin committed three robberies that involved dangerous
shootings. First, he participated in the Van Nuys robbery where
Ziegler and Merle were robbed and shot. Second, he participated
in the Daytona Beach robbery in which he and Farley robbed
Gutierrez, and he shot at the restaurant owner. Third, he partici-
pated in the August 2016 robbery of McNair and Tisdale’s stash
house. After this robbery was complete, he shot Register twice in
the head, killing her. 6 This evidence shows that Martin repeatedly
participated in dangerous and violent robberies that involved
shootings and in one instance murder. Given this record, it was
6 On appeal, Martin has not challenged the district court’s factual finding that
the government proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he shot Reg-
ister. And the district court clearly was permitted to consider this conduct
when weighing the § 3553(a) factors. See Wilson, 788 F.3d at 1317.
USCA11 Case: 24-11031 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 03/05/2026 Page: 20 of 21
20 Opinion of the Court 24-11031
reasonable for the district court to impose a consecutive sentence.
Accordingly, any error in the district court’s analysis of § 5G1.3(b)
was harmless.
B.
Martin also raises a second issue on appeal: that the district
court erred by failing to give him an opportunity to allocute. “Al-
locution is the right of the defendant to make a final plea on his
own behalf to the sentencer before the imposition of a sentence.”
United States v. Prouty, 303 F.3d 1249, 1251 (11th Cir. 2002). The
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure require that before imposing
the sentence the district court “address the defendant personally”
and allow him to “speak or present any information to mitigate the
sentence.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(4)(A)(ii). When a district court im-
poses a sentence before giving a defendant an opportunity to allo-
cute, we must vacate the sentence and remand so that the district
court may give the defendant a chance to speak. United States v.
George, 872 F.3d 1197, 1207–09 (11th Cir. 2017). On remand, the
district court must give the defendant a chance to speak, but the
defendant generally is not entitled to “an entirely new resentenc-
ing—he may not reassert or reargue any of his objections to the
PSR, file new objections to the PSR, or file a new sentencing mem-
orandum.” Id.
Here, Martin argues for the first time on appeal that the dis-
trict court erred at sentencing by denying him an opportunity to
allocute before the court first announced that it would be imposing
a consecutive sentence. But at the time the court made this
USCA11 Case: 24-11031 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 03/05/2026 Page: 21 of 21
24-11031 Opinion of the Court 21
announcement, it was not imposing the sentence. And Martin does
not dispute that after the court initially stated that it was going to
impose a consecutive sentence, he was given an opportunity to al-
locute. Indeed, the record shows that he addressed the court before
it imposed the sentence.
Martin nevertheless argues that when the court first an-
nounced that it intended to have his federal sentence run consecu-
tively to his state sentence, he had no meaningful opportunity to
allocute. Because Martin raises this issue for the first time on ap-
peal, we review for plain error. See Corbett, 921 F.3d at 1037. He
cannot show that any error was plain. Certainly, a district court
plainly errs when it fails to give a defendant a chance to allocute
before imposing a sentence. See George, 872 F.3d at 1207. But he has
cited no published case holding that a district court errs when, be-
fore giving the defendant a chance to allocute, it announces its in-
tent to impose a consecutive sentence but then allows him to allo-
cute before it imposes the sentence. We thus cannot say that the
district court plainly erred here. We affirm as to this issue.
AFFIRMED.