[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 12-14451

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:07-cr-00124-WKW-WC-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CHRISTOPHER DWAYNE OWENS, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Alabama

________________________

(March 27, 2013)

Before HULL, JORDAN and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Christopher Owens pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and was sentenced to 120 months’ 

Case: 12-14451 Date Filed: 03/27/2013 Page: 1 of 6 
2

imprisonment. On appeal, Owens argues that his sentence was procedurally and 

substantively unreasonable because, although it runs concurrently to three 

sentences he received for state convictions, it is consecutive to the other two. After 

careful review, we affirm.

According to the presentence investigation report (PSI) introduced at the 

sentencing hearing, in 2007, Owens held captive at gunpoint his ex-girlfriend, her 

mother, and her three children and told them that if they did not go with him to 

Florida, he would kill them. Based on this conduct, Owens was convicted in 

Alabama state court in August 2010 of burglary, possession of a firearm with an

altered serial number, and assault. He received a life sentence on each count. In 

December 2010, Owens received two further life sentences in state court for two 

counts of assaulting corrections officers.

In 2008, Owens pleaded guilty in federal court to being a felon in possession 

of a firearm for the 2007 incident on which his three August 2010 state convictions

were based. The district court sentenced Owens to 120 months’ imprisonment.

1

 

Owens argued that the federal sentence should run concurrently to all of his state 

 1 Owens was originally sentenced in federal court to 293 months’ imprisonment as an armed 

career criminal, and this court affirmed his sentence. See United States v. Owens, 363 F. App’x 

696 (11th Cir. 2010) (unpublished). The Supreme Court granted certiorari and vacated for 

reconsideration of Owens’s status as an armed career criminal in light of Johnson v. United 

States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010). See Owens v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 638 (2010). We vacated 

Owens’s sentence and remanded, concluding the district court erred in sentencing Owens as an 

armed career criminal. See United States v. Owens, 672 F.3d 966, 972 (11th Cir. 2012).

Case: 12-14451 Date Filed: 03/27/2013 Page: 2 of 6 
3

sentences, but the district court concluded his sentence should be consecutive to his 

two sentences for assaulting corrections officers. This is Owens’s appeal.

We review the reasonableness of a sentence under a deferential abuse-ofdiscretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). “We look first 

at whether the district court committed any significant procedural error and then at 

whether the sentence is substantively reasonable under the totality of the 

circumstances.” United States v. Turner, 626 F.3d 566, 573 (11th Cir. 2010).

Owens argues that the district court’s decision that his federal sentence be

consecutive to his two state sentences for assaulting corrections officers was 

procedurally unreasonable. Section 5G1.3 of the Sentencing Guidelines governs 

the imposition of a federal sentence on a defendant subject to an undischarged state 

term of imprisonment. Under § 5G1.3(c), the district court had discretion to 

impose the federal sentence either consecutively or concurrently to Owens’s two 

state sentences for assaulting corrections officers because they concerned different 

offense conduct. See United States v. Bradford, 277 F.3d 1311, 1317 (11th Cir. 

2002). When applying § 5G1.3(c), the district court should consider: (1) the 

factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); (2) the type and length of the prior undischarged 

sentence; (3) the time served on the undischarged sentence and the time likely to 

be served before release; (4) whether the undischarged sentence was imposed in 

state court; and (5) any other relevant circumstances. U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3, cmt. 

Case: 12-14451 Date Filed: 03/27/2013 Page: 3 of 6 
4

(n.3(A)). The § 3553(a) factors include, inter alia, the nature and circumstances of 

the offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant, and the need to reflect

the seriousness of the offense. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

The district court’s decision that Owens’s federal sentence be consecutive to

his two state sentences for assaulting corrections officers was procedurally 

reasonable. In making its § 5G1.3(c) determination, the district court pointed to 

the seriousness of his federal offense, among other factors. Owens argues that, in 

considering that factor, the district court improperly considered his three state 

convictions because they were based on the same underlying conduct. That 

resulted in impermissible double-counting, he contends, because the court already 

accounted for those three state convictions under § 5G1.3(b) when it decided his 

sentence should run concurrently with them.

2

 Although the federal offense and the 

three state convictions involved the same underlying conduct, the district court did 

not double-count the state offenses. Rather, the district court simply considered 

the “nature and circumstances” of the federal offense for which Owens was being 

sentenced as it was supposed to do under § 3553(a)(1). 

Owens further argues that the district court’s decision that his federal 

sentence be consecutive to his two state sentences for assaulting corrections 

 2 Under U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(b), the district court must order a sentence to be served concurrently 

with a term of imprisonment that “resulted from another offense that is relevant conduct to the 

instant offense of conviction . . . .” The parties agree that the district court correctly ordered the 

federal sentence to run concurrently with the three life sentences imposed in state court based on 

the same conduct.

Case: 12-14451 Date Filed: 03/27/2013 Page: 4 of 6 
5

officers resulted in a sentence that was substantively unreasonable. We examine 

whether a sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the 

circumstances. Turner, 626 F.3d at 573. The district court must impose a sentence 

“sufficient, but not greater than necessary” to comply with the § 3553(a) factors. 

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). “The party challenging the sentence bears the burden to 

show it is unreasonable in light of the record and the § 3553(a) factors.” United 

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

Owens has not met his burden to demonstrate that his sentence was 

substantively unreasonable. Owens contends that his federal sentence should have 

run concurrently with all of his state sentences in light of his mild mental 

impairments, his rehabilitation efforts while incarcerated, the length of his state 

sentences, and his age when he would be eligible for release. But the district court, 

having considered Owens’s arguments and evidence, found that a sentence 

consecutive to the two state sentences for assaulting corrections officers was 

appropriate because: (1) it was uncertain how long Owens would be incarcerated 

on his state convictions because he would be parole-eligible in 8 years and he had 

previously served only 5 years of a 15-year state sentence for previous crimes; (2) 

Owens had a serious criminal history, which included general instances of 

violence; and (3) the offense conduct underlying this conviction was serious, 

involving Owens holding his ex-girlfriend and her mother and three children 

Case: 12-14451 Date Filed: 03/27/2013 Page: 5 of 6 
6

captive with a pistol and threatening them. Owens has failed to show that the 

district court abused its discretion.

Because Owens has not shown that his sentence was procedurally or 

substantively unreasonable, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 12-14451 Date Filed: 03/27/2013 Page: 6 of 6