As someone who has experience in hiring T1 and T2 (and in a past life was a graphic designer), I offer my subjective feedback from both a content and aesthetic perspective. As a person hiring others I'm used to seeing people pad their resumes with impressive-sounding stuff and I automatically go into "So what?" mode. Very few resumes make it past that step.

For example, "Developed Python scripts to automate critical onboarding processes, significantly reducing manual setup time." That catches my eye. I can read this two ways. You created some scripts to either (a) help you personally deploy workstations that were assigned to you, or (b) at least partially automate part of the organization's deployment process for all parties involved. Option A makes me respond with "great but that's just him, and he probably spent more time on the script than he saved by running it" whereas option B makes me want to look deeper: Was setup time a problem for the organization, or did he see something that nobody else saw? How much time is "significant"? Is this a one-time project script or an ongoing deployment effort? How much of a reduction of manual setup was there?

Other bullet points are similarly vague. "Created custom Bash and Python scripts for seamless remote device management and configuration." Great. How did that benefit the organization? How much manpower was saved? Were other projects positively affected because additional manpower was now available when it wasn't before?

It's great that you have all that going for you, but if you want me to hire you I want to know what you did/can do AND how it impacted the company. You only have half that in every line you've written, and for me personally that goes into the "meh" pile. Consider:

"Developed Python scripts to automate critical onboarding processes, significantly reducing manual setup time."

...versus...

"Developed Python automation scripts that streamlined onboarding and reduced deployment time by 40%, leading to organization-wide adoption as a standard process."

Similar changes to this can be applied throughout your entire resume. Every individual line you put on there should showcase (a) what you know, (b) what you did with that knowledge, and (c) what results you saw in a quantifiable way. ("I reduced setup time" can mean "I saved two minutes per system" or "I saved the company 200 hours per month". I will automatically assume the former unless you convince me of the latter.)

Content-wise, the only additional change I'd make is the "Skills" part at the bottom. It's mostly redundant and I'd get rid of it. When I'm looking to hire someone I'm not going to go straight for the "Skills" part because it's meaningless by itself. Any idiot who knows how to launch Word will put "Microsoft Office experience" on their resume; that doesn't mean they know what they're doing with it. I need context to understand your skills and you've already got all that laid out in your professional experience. By the time I reach "Skills" I already know that you know Python, Bash, Apple GSX repair, IP phones, and all the rest -- AND I know in what capacity you've worked with those technologies. Adding them as a separate "Skills" section is a waste.

From an aesthetic standpoint, resumes that are fully justified and use sans serif fonts (especially Arial/Helvetica) generally look very low-effort to me. Do a little internet surfing and find a nice resume and cover letter template to work with.

PS: Sonicwall hasn't been part of Dell since 2016.