[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 18-10313

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:17-cr-20518-JEM-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

LEE JONES SIMON, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(August 22, 2018)

Before MARCUS, ROSENBAUM, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 18-10313 Date Filed: 08/22/2018 Page: 1 of 7 
2

Lee Jones Simon appeals his 37-month sentence imposed after pleading 

guilty to possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon, in violation 

of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).

1

 Florida law enforcement discovered the firearm in a closet 

when executing a search warrant on Simon’s apartment in connection with a 

separate investigation. Simon argues that the district court should have granted his 

motion for a downward departure2 and that the sentence imposed was substantively 

unreasonable because the district court presumed that the Guidelines range was 

proper without adequately considering the following mitigating factors raised 

below: (1) that his felony conviction occurred 17 years ago, and he had turned his 

life around since then, and (2) that he suffers from bad health. After thorough 

review of the record, we affirm. 

We review the reasonableness of a sentence under the deferential

abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). The 

appellant bears the burden of showing that the sentence is unreasonable in light of 

 1

 Simon was previously convicted of armed carjacking in 2001 and sentenced to four 

years in prison. 

2 To the extent Simon seeks to appeal the denial of his motion for a downward departure, 

we lack jurisdiction to review a district court’s decision to deny a motion for a downward 

departure where, as in this case, the district court merely exercised its discretion to deny the 

motion and was not operating under the mistaken belief that it lacked the authority to grant a 

departure. United States v. Dudley, 463 F.3d 1221, 1228 (11th Cir. 2006) (“We lack jurisdiction 

to review a district court’s decision to deny a downward departure unless the district court 

incorrectly believed that it lacked authority to grant the departure.”). 

Case: 18-10313 Date Filed: 08/22/2018 Page: 2 of 7 
3

the record and the sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). United States v. 

Tome, 611 F.3d 1371, 1378 (11th Cir. 2010). 

The district court may not presume that a sentence within the Guidelines

range is reasonable; instead, to determine the appropriate sentence, the district 

court must make an individualized assessment based on the facts of the case. Gall, 

552 U.S. at 50. The district court is required to impose a sentence that is 

“sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes set forth in 

[§ 3553(a)(2),]” including the need to reflect the seriousness of the offense, 

promote respect for the law, provide just punishment, deter criminal conduct, and 

protect the public from future crimes of the defendant. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). In 

determining the appropriate sentence, the district court must consider a variety of 

factors, including (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense, (2) the history 

and characteristics of the defendant, (3) the kinds of sentences available, (4) the 

applicable sentencing guidelines range and pertinent policy statements of the 

Sentencing Commission, (5) the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities, 

and (6) the need to provide restitution to victims. Id. § 3553(a). “The weight to be 

accorded any given § 3553(a) factor is a matter committed to the sound discretion 

of the district court.” United States v. Clay, 483 F.3d 739, 743 (11th Cir. 2007)

(quoting United States v. Williams, 456 F.3d 1353, 1363 (11th Cir. 2006)). We 

will vacate a sentence as substantively unreasonable only if “we ‘are left with the 

Case: 18-10313 Date Filed: 08/22/2018 Page: 3 of 7 
4

definite and firm conviction that the district court committed a clear error of 

judgment in weighing the § 3553(a) factors by arriving at a sentence that lies 

outside the range of reasonable sentences dictated by the facts of the case.’” 

United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1190 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (quoting 

United States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179, 1191 (11th Cir. 2008)).

Prior to sentencing, the probation office prepared a presentence investigation 

report, which indicated that Simon’s total base offense level under the Sentencing 

Guidelines was 19. Simon’s criminal history category was III, based on a 2001 

conviction for armed carjacking and a 2009 misdemeanor conviction for 

possession with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver marijuana. This resulted in 

an advisory Guidelines range of 37 to 46 months’ imprisonment. The statutory 

maximum term of imprisonment was 10 years. 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2). 

Simon filed a motion for a downward departure, pursuant to U.S.S.G. 

§ 4A1.3(b),3 arguing that his criminal history was significantly overrepresented 

because it was based on older convictions, the most serious of which occurred over 

17 years prior, and, therefore, a downward departure was appropriate. He also 

argued that a departure was warranted because he was not carrying, brandishing, or 

firing the firearm during the present offense, and merely had it stored in his closet. 

 3 Section 4A1.3(b) provides that “if reliable information indicates that the defendant’s 

criminal history category substantially over-represents the seriousness of the defendant’s 

criminal history or the likelihood that the defendant will commit other crimes, a downward 

departure may be warranted.” U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(b)(1).

Case: 18-10313 Date Filed: 08/22/2018 Page: 4 of 7 
5

At sentencing, Simon’s counsel reiterated this argument, the court inquired 

what an appropriate sentence would be, and Simon’s counsel urged the court to 

impose a sentence in the 10 to 16 month range. The government argued that, 

although the offenses may have occurred “a long time ago,” the Sentencing 

Guidelines correctly reflected Simon’s criminal history and there was no reason to 

depart from the advisory Guidelines range. 

The district court noted that, although Simon’s convictions may have been 

older, in the past 17 years, Simon had 13 arrests. And, although those cases were 

nolle prossed or otherwise dismissed, it still reflected that Simon had engaged in 

concerning conduct. Additionally, the district court noted that it was troubled by 

the fact that Simon’s reported work history indicated that he made at most $200 a 

month, but at the time the firearm was discovered in his closet, Simon also had a 

duffel bag containing over $70,000 in cash. The district court noted that, even 

accepting that $36,000 of this belonged to Simon’s father and Simon “was just 

holding it for his dad,” it was still troubling. The district court also noted that it did 

not matter that Simon was not actively carrying, using, or brandishing the firearm

because as a convicted felon he was not supposed to possess it at all. The district 

court stated that it had considered the advisory Guidelines range, and all of the 

§ 3553(a) factors, as well as mitigating evidence in the form of letters of support 

written by Simon’s family members. The district court also considered Simon’s 

Case: 18-10313 Date Filed: 08/22/2018 Page: 5 of 7 
6

own statement at sentencing that he had accepted responsibility for his actions, had 

been doing the best he could, was not a risk to society, was in bad health, and was 

very sorry for his actions. In light of all those considerations, the district court 

found that a 37-month sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range was 

reasonable.

Simon cannot show that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The 

district court did not presume that a sentence within the advisory Guidelines range 

of 37 to 46 months’ imprisonment was proper. Instead, in determining the 

appropriate sentence, the district court considered not only the advisory Guidelines

range, but also the age of Simon’s prior convictions, his personal history and 

characteristics, the § 3553(a) factors, the arguments made by the parties, and the 

mitigating evidence. The district court expressed its concerns and reasons for not 

imposing a sentence below the Guidelines range, which were supported by the 

record. Furthermore, the sentence is within the Guidelines range and is well below 

the statutory maximum, both of which are additional indicators of reasonableness. 

United States v. Asante, 782 F.3d 639, 648 (11th Cir. 2015) (“[W]e will ‘not 

automatically presume a sentence within the [G]uidelines range is reasonable,’ but 

we ‘ordinarily expect a sentence within the Guidelines range to be reasonable.’” 

(quoting United States v. Hunt, 526 F.3d 739, 746 (11th Cir. 2008)); United 

States v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319, 1324 (11th Cir. 2008) (holding that the 

Case: 18-10313 Date Filed: 08/22/2018 Page: 6 of 7 
7

sentence was reasonable in part because it was well below the statutory maximum). 

Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a 37-month 

sentence, and we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 18-10313 Date Filed: 08/22/2018 Page: 7 of 7