In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

No. 09-3789

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

ANTHONY L. VAUGHN,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Indiana, Terre Haute Division. 

No. 2:09 CR 0007—Larry J. McKinney, Judge.

ARGUED JULY 8, 2010—DECIDED JULY 30, 2010

Before BAUER, RIPPLE, and KANNE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. While incarcerated at the federal penitentiary in Terre Haute, Indiana, Anthony Vaughn repeatedly stabbed a prison guard with an eight-inch

shank. He pleaded guilty to committing aggravated

assault on a federal officer, see 18 U.S.C. § 111(a), (b),

and the district court sentenced him to 180 months’

imprisonment, 45 months above the top of the guidelines range. Vaughn’s sole argument on appeal is that
2 No. 09-3789

the sentence is substantively unreasonable. We disagree

and affirm the judgment.

The events that precipitated Vaughn’s assault began

the morning of April 23, 2009, when he and two other

inmates were lifting weights in their housing unit, a

practice that (at least in that particular unit) was

officially prohibited but often tolerated by the guards.

Officer Douglas Camden saw the men exercising and told

them to put away the weights because a lieutenant was

about to inspect the unit. The men disregarded the instruction and were still lifting weights when the

lieutenant arrived. Camden and the lieutenant went into

the guards’ office inside the housing unit, and Vaughn

followed, apparently wishing to discuss the weight-lifting

issue. Camden told Vaughn he was busy and that they

would discuss the matter later. About 15 minutes later,

after the lieutenant had departed, Vaughn returned to

the office and confronted Camden when he was alone.

According to Camden, Vaughn pointed at him and said,

“You better watch how you talk to me.” Vaughn added

that he had “stabbed a cop” before and would do so

again. Vaughn’s threats escalated, and Camden twice

ordered him to leave the office. Vaughn responded by

lunging at Camden with a shank. He missed initially but

in the ensuing struggle stabbed Camden twice in his left

shoulder and inflicted multiple cuts to his face. Camden

broke free and fled the office, but Vaughn followed

and stabbed him two more times before other guards

intervened.

At sentencing Camden testified that the attack had

diminished his physical strength by about 40%, substan-
No. 09-3789 3

tially limited the range of motion in his left shoulder, and

caused numbness in his neck, head, and shoulder.

His doctors and physical therapists, said Camden, had

warned that these impairments could be permanent.

Camden added that he relives the incident in recurring

nightmares, has become irritable with family and friends,

and worries about his ability to return to police work.

Edward Wheele, the FBI agent who investigated the

attack, authenticated photographs of the weapon, which

depict an eight-inch metal shank. Wheele had interrogated Vaughn, who blamed the attack on Camden and

never inquired about his recovery.

In his allocution Vaughn asked the district court to

spare him from spending the rest of his life in prison.

He noted that he had been in prison since his 21st birthday and reflected on his efforts to better himself during

his 15 years of incarceration. He is not violent by nature,

Vaughn insisted, and before the assault he had tried to

keep a clean record because he was nearly eligible to

transfer to a lower-security facility. He only possessed

the shank, Vaughn explained, to protect himself from

another inmate he disarmed to prevent an attack on a

different guard. Vaughn’s lawyer added to these statements by emphasizing that, although the presentence

report reveals a significant history of disciplinary infractions while in prison, most of those incidents had

occurred more than ten years earlier and the few recent

infractions were nonviolent.

The district court calculated a total offense level of 29,

see U.S.S.G. §§ 2A2.2(a), (b)(2)(C), (b)(6), 3A1.2(c), 3E1.1(a),
4 No. 09-3789

and a Category III criminal history, yielding a guidelines

imprisonment range of 108 to 135 months. In explaining

its choice of a 180-month term to run consecutively to

Vaughn’s undischarged sentence, the court emphasized

that the senseless nature of this attack suggested that

Vaughn has a poor ability to control his behavior. The

lack of self control is also evident, reasoned the court,

from the “continuing nature” of the offense, referring to

Vaughn’s decision to trail Camden from the office and

attack a second time, even after the officer had tried to

escape. The judge also observed that Vaughn’s weapon

was “as nasty” as any he had seen before and could

only serve a violent purpose. Finally, the court concluded

that a longer sentence was justified for deterrence purposes in light of the heightened need for security within

the prison system.

Vaughn challenges only the substantive reasonableness of his above-range prison sentence. A sentence is

reasonable if the district court properly calculated the

guidelines range and then exercised appropriate discretion in applying the factors specified in 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a). See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 56 (2007);

United States v. Panice, 598 F.3d 426, 441 (7th Cir. 2010). A

district court is free to impose a sentence outside the

guidelines range so long as the judge explains why

that sentence is appropriate under § 3553(a). See United

States v. Bartlett, 567 F.3d 901, 909 (7th Cir. 2009).

The district court complied with this procedure. The

court properly calculated the guidelines range—a calculation that Vaughn does not dispute—and concluded that
No. 09-3789 5

a higher prison sentence was necessary to account for

the considerations relevant under § 3553(a). See United

States v. Smith, 562 F.3d 866, 872 (7th Cir. 2009). The

court explained that its decision rested on the need to

deter Vaughn and others from such senseless attacks,

the effort by Vaughn to prolong the attack, and the gruesome quality of the weapon.

Vaughn’s attempts to undermine these reasons are

unpersuasive. First, the district court appropriately

focused on the need to deter Vaughn given the senseless nature of this attack. Vaughn entered the guards’

office with a shank, looking for a fight. And he used that

shank to stab Camden numerous times. The court reasonably noted that, if this was how Vaughn behaved

while hoping for a transfer to a lower-security facility,

his judgment could not be trusted. See United States v.

Walker, 447 F. 3d 999, 1008 (7th Cir. 2006).

The court also reasonably relied on the “continuing

nature” of the attack. Vaughn objects to this characterization because the attack lasted only seconds, but the court

was not commenting on the attack’s duration. Instead,

the court was concerned with Vaughn’s decision to

renew the assault even after Camden had escaped the

office.

Finally, the district court appropriately based its decision on the “nasty” nature of the weapon. Vaughn argues

that his offense level was increased because he used a

dangerous weapon, see U.S.S.G. § 2A2.2(b)(2)(B), and the

court failed to explain why that increase was insufficient to account for the nature of the shank. But the
6 No. 09-3789

district court did explain itself. The judge properly compared Vaughn’s attack to “typical” prison assaults, see

§ 3553(a)(2)(A), (6); United States v. Carter, 538 F.3d 784,

793 (7th Cir. 2008), and remarked that Vaughn had used

a weapon that was as gruesome as any the court had

ever seen. Because this and the other explanations the

district court gave for imposing an above-guidelines

sentence are all reasonable, we affirm the judgment.

7-30-10