[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 21-10845

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LAMARTREZ OSHUN STORY, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Alabama

D.C. Docket No. 3:19-cr-00138-ECM-SMD-2

____________________

USCA11 Case: 21-10845 Date Filed: 01/04/2022 Page: 1 of 8
2 Opinion of the Court 21-10845

Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Lamartrez Story appeals his sentence of 42 months’ imprisonment for bank robbery. Story argues that the district court improperly imposed a two-point obstruction of justice enhancement 

under United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3C1.1 on the 

ground that he committed perjury when he testified at trial. Story 

also argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because 

the court failed to consider relevant factors and created a sentencing disparity between Story and his codefendants. After careful review, we affirm.

I. 

We presume familiarity with the factual and procedural history of this case and describe it below only to the extent necessary 

to address the issues raised in this appeal.

A grand jury returned a superseding indictment charging 

Cordero Story, Lamartrez Story, and Jacobie Phillips, each with 

one count of conspiring to commit armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (Count 1), and one count of armed bank 

robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d) (Count 2). The 

superseding indictment also charged Cordero with one count of 

using, carrying, or brandishing a firearm during and in relation to 

a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). Cordero 

pleaded guilty to all three counts of the superseding indictment. 

USCA11 Case: 21-10845 Date Filed: 01/04/2022 Page: 2 of 8
21-10845 Opinion of the Court 3

Phillips pleaded guilty to an information charging the lesser included offenses of conspiracy to commit bank robbery, in violation 

of 18 U.S.C. § 371, and bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 

2113(a). 

Lamartrez Story pleaded not guilty and went to trial. His 

codefendants cooperated with the government, testifying that 

Story drove to Cordero’s house on the morning of the robbery, 

picked up Cordero and Phillips, drove them to the bank so they 

could rob it, and then drove them away. That version of events was 

corroborated by text messages that Story exchanged with Cordero

before the robbery, in which he seemed to agree to discuss something in person rather than over the phone. It was also supported 

by testimony from an eyewitness who said he saw Story’s red Mustang parked near the bank, waiting to serve as the getaway car. 

Story testified in his own defense, denying any role in the 

robbery. He testified that he did not drive Cordero and Phillips to 

the bank, and that he instead spent that morning looking for a job 

at a temp agency and getting something to eat at McDonalds. He 

testified that he did not wait nearby as the getaway driver, and that 

he only picked up his codefendants when Cordero called him asking for a ride, not knowing that they had just robbed a bank. Finally, he testified that he did not notice his codefendants throwing 

items of clothing out of the car as he drove them away from the 

bank.

The jury returned a verdict convicting Story of the lesser included offense of bank robbery and acquitting him of the 

USCA11 Case: 21-10845 Date Filed: 01/04/2022 Page: 3 of 8
4 Opinion of the Court 21-10845

conspiracy and armed bank robbery charges. Based on Cordero’s 

and Phillips’s substantial assistance in testifying at trial, the government moved for a downward departure at each of their sentencings. The district court granted those motions. It sentenced 

Phillips to 27 months’ imprisonment on each count, set to run concurrently. And it sentenced Cordero to 84 months’ imprisonment—21 months on Counts 1 and 2, set to run concurrently, and 

63 months on Count 3, set to run consecutively. 

At the sentencing for Story, the district court overruled 

Story’s objection to a two-point enhancement for obstruction of 

justice under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. It then calculated a final offense 

level of 30, a criminal history category of I, and a guideline range 

of 97 to 121 months. The district court granted Story’s motion for 

a downward variance—in part to avoid a sentencing disparity between Story and his codefendants—and sentenced him to a term of 

42 months’ imprisonment. 

II. 

Story argues first that the district court improperly imposed 

a two-point obstruction of justice enhancement on the ground that 

he committed perjury when he testified at trial. He also argues that 

his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the court failed 

to consider relevant factors and created a sentencing disparity between Story and his codefendants. We address each argument in 

turn.

USCA11 Case: 21-10845 Date Filed: 01/04/2022 Page: 4 of 8
21-10845 Opinion of the Court 5

A.

The district court imposed a two-level obstruction of justice 

enhancement based on its finding that Story committed perjury 

when he testified in his own defense. Story argues that there is no 

evidence that he intentionally lied or obstructed justice. The government responds that the district court’s finding was correct, and

that even if Story could show error, the error was harmless because 

the district court stated that it would have imposed the same sentence even without the enhancement. We agree with the government. 

The imposition of an obstruction of justice enhancement involves questions of law and fact. United States v. Johnson, 980 F.3d 

1364, 1374 (11th Cir. 2020). We review the district court’s factual 

findings for clear error and the court’s application of the Guidelines 

to those facts de novo. Id.

Section 3C1.1 of the sentencing guidelines provides for a 

two-point enhancement when a defendant obstructs or attempts to 

obstruct the administration of justice in a way that is related to his 

offense of conviction. U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. Committing perjury is one 

way a defendant can obstruct justice. Id. at cmt. n.4(B). Even if we 

conclude that the district court erred in applying the enhancement, 

remand is unnecessary if the error was harmless. See United States 

v. Williams, 503 U.S. 193, 203 (1992). An error is harmless if it did 

not impact the sentence the district court ultimately imposed, and 

the sentence, considered apart from the error, is still substantively 

USCA11 Case: 21-10845 Date Filed: 01/04/2022 Page: 5 of 8
6 Opinion of the Court 21-10845

reasonable. See United States v. Keene, 470 F.3d 1347, 1348-50 

(11th Cir. 2006).

Here, there is no reason to think that the district court erred 

in its finding that Story committed perjury. The district court found 

that Story’s testimony was not consistent with the codefendants’ 

testimony, a disinterested eyewitness’s testimony, and the physical 

evidence recovered by law enforcement. The district court specifically cited Story’s testimony that, after he picked up Cordero and 

Phillips from the bank, he did not see them removing clothing and 

throwing it out of the window of the getaway car. But even if the 

district court erred in its finding, any error would be harmless because the court specifically stated that it would have sentenced 

Story to 42 months’ imprisonment even without the enhancement.

See Keene, 470 F.3d at 1349–50. If the court had not imposed the 

obstruction enhancement, Story’s guideline range would have 

been 78 to 97 months of imprisonment. If the court had used that

range, Story’s sentence would still have been below guidelines and, 

as discussed below, substantively reasonable.

B.

The district court ultimately imposed a sentence of 42 

months’ imprisonment. Story argues that the district court failed 

to adequately weigh the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and imposed a

sentence longer than necessary to serve the purposes of Section

3553(a)(2). He also argues that the court created a disparity between his sentence and his codefendants’ sentences. The 

USCA11 Case: 21-10845 Date Filed: 01/04/2022 Page: 6 of 8
21-10845 Opinion of the Court 7

government responds that the district court adequately weighed 

the Section 3553(a) factors and imposed a substantively reasonable

sentence. And it argues that there was no sentencing disparity because, unlike his codefendants, Story did not plead guilty or assist 

the government. Again, we agree with the government. 

We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for 

abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). A 

court abuses its discretion if it does not consider relevant factors 

due substantial weight, significantly weighs an irrelevant or improper factor, or commits a clear error of judgment in its consideration of sentencing factors. United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 

1189 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc). We will not vacate a sentence as 

substantively unreasonable unless we have a definite and firm conviction that the district court clearly erred in considering the Section 3553(a) factors by imposing a sentence beyond the range of 

sentences that would be reasonable given the case’s facts. United 

States v. Riley, 995 F.3d 1272, 1278 (11th Cir. 2021). A sentence being well below the statutory maximum is an indicator of reasonableness. United States v. Gonzales, 550 F.3d 1319, 1324 (11th Cir. 

2008).

A sentencing disparity among codefendants is usually not 

grounds for appellate relief. United States v. Cavallo, 790 F.3d 1202, 

1237 (11th Cir. 2015). When considering a disparity claim, we first 

consider whether the defendant is similarly situated to the defendants he compares himself to. United States v. Duperval, 777 F.3d 

1324, 1338 (11th Cir. 2015). One differentiating factor is a 

USCA11 Case: 21-10845 Date Filed: 01/04/2022 Page: 7 of 8
8 Opinion of the Court 21-10845

defendant’s cooperation with the government and willingness to 

plead guilty. Cavallo, 790 F.3d at 1237.

Here, Story’s sentence of 42 months’ imprisonment was

substantively reasonable. Story’s 42-month sentence was well below the statutory maximum and came after a downward variance 

from the guideline range—which the district court granted, in part,

to mitigate any sentencing disparity between Story and his codefendants. The district court stated that it considered the advisory 

guidelines and the Section 3553(a) factors. It specifically noted 

Story’s lack of criminal history, the seriousness of the bank robbery, the fact that a firearm was used, the impact on the victims, 

the need to avoid a sentencing disparity among his codefendants, 

and his family support. 

Furthermore, Story’s disparity claim fails because he is not 

similarly situated to the codefendants he compares himself to.

Story’s codefendants cooperated with the government and pled 

guilty—Story did not. See Cavallo, 790 F.3d at 1237; Duperval, 777 

F.3d at 1338.

AFFIRMED. 

USCA11 Case: 21-10845 Date Filed: 01/04/2022 Page: 8 of 8