Opinion ID: 3045886
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Reasonableness of Overstreet’s Sentence

Text: We review “all sentences—whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range—under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” 17 Case: 11-16031 Date Filed: 03/28/2013 Page: 18 of 26 Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 128 S. Ct. 586, 591 (2007). 8 First, we determine whether the district court committed any “significant procedural error” and, second, whether the sentence was “substantively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances.” United States v. Turner, 626 F.3d 566, 573 (11th Cir. 2010). “A sentence may be procedurally unreasonable if the district court improperly calculates the Guidelines range, treats the Guidelines as mandatory rather than advisory, fails to consider the appropriate statutory factors, selects a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or fails to adequately explain the chosen sentence.” United States v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319, 1323 (11th Cir. 2008). “The review for substantive unreasonableness involves examining the totality of the circumstances, including an inquiry into whether the statutory factors in § 3553(a) support the sentence in question.” Id. at 1324. If the district court determines that a sentence outside the guideline range is appropriate, “it must consider the extent of the deviation and ensure that the justification is sufficiently compelling to support the degree of the variance.” United States v. Williams, 526 F.3d 1312, 1322 (11th Cir. 2008) (internal 8 The government argues that we should review the reasonableness of Overstreet’s sentence for plain error because he failed to object to that sentence. We disagree. Before being sentenced, Overstreet expressly asked the court to sentence him within the applicable guideline range, and, after being sentenced, stated that he wished to raise all of his previously-made sentencing objections. Therefore, Overstreet has adequately preserved the issue of reasonableness for appellate review. See United States v. Hoffer, 129 F.3d 1196, 1202 (11th Cir. 1997) (stating that a party preserves a sentencing objection by raising it “at some point during the sentencing hearing”). 18 Case: 11-16031 Date Filed: 03/28/2013 Page: 19 of 26 quotation marks omitted). Even where the degree of the variance is substantial, we will not reverse a sentence unless “we are left with the 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. Shaw, 560 F.3d 1230, 1238 (11th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).9 In challenging the reasonableness of his sentence, Overstreet argues that the district court improperly sentenced him as if he was convicted for the disappearance and death of Taffy, even though he was only convicted for illegally possessing a firearm. Overstreet contends that Taffy’s disappearance was unrelated to his felon-in-possession offense, and that punishing him for her murder violated the principle espoused by the Constitution and the Guidelines that he be sentenced only for the firearm offense of conviction and related conduct. Overstreet concedes that his role in Taffy’s disappearance could be considered for 9 Under § 3553(a), a sentencing court must impose a sentence that is “sufficient, but not greater than necessary” to comply with the purposes of sentencing set forth in § 3553(a)(2), which include the need to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, provide just punishment for the offense, deter criminal conduct, and protect the public from the defendant’s further crimes. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). Other factors to be considered in imposing a sentence include the nature and circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant, the available sentences, the applicable guideline range, the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities, and the need to provide restitution to victims. Id. § 3553(a)(1), (3)-(7). 19 Case: 11-16031 Date Filed: 03/28/2013 Page: 20 of 26 purposes of sentencing under the post-Booker10 advisory guideline regime, but stresses that the district court placed excessive weight on his purported murder of Taffy. As an initial matter, the district court’s finding—that the government proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Overstreet murdered Taffy—was not clearly erroneous.11 Overstreet does not dispute the sufficiency of that evidence on appeal. The following non-exhaustive list of circumstantial evidence led the district court inescapably to that finding: (1) Taffy disappeared on the same day, November 8, 2010, that Overstreet cut his ankle monitor and absconded from parole; (2) the day before her disappearance, Taffy told a relative that she was fighting with Overstreet and wanted him out of her house; (3) when he absconded, Overstreet took Taffy’s car, perhaps her guns, her cell phone, laptop, and her only means of support—the food stamp card and the debit card; (4) before heading to Jacksonville, Florida, after absconding, Overstreet drove to the area near the Brazos River in Texas where he had raped and shot a young woman in May 1986; (5) Overstreet used Taffy’s debit card 25 times in Jacksonville, even though he must have known that she would report the card as stolen if she was alive; (6) when Overstreet was arrested in Jacksonville, a gun and a roll of duct tape with 10 United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). 11 We review a district court’s fact findings at sentencing only for clear error. United States v. Lebowitz, 676 F.3d 1000, 1015 (11th Cir. 2012). 20 Case: 11-16031 Date Filed: 03/28/2013 Page: 21 of 26 Taffy’s blood were found in the trunk of the car he was driving; and (7) although Overstreet denied murdering Taffy during his interview with Sergeant Ruland, the district court reviewed the video-taped interview and found that Overstreet’s demeanor and lack of emotion cast serious doubt on his credibility. 12 Furthermore, we recognize that the district court did not find Overstreet’s offense of conviction—possession of a firearm by a convicted felon—to be connected to Taffy’s murder. 13 However, as Overstreet concedes, the district court was still entitled to consider the murder in deciding whether to vary outside the guideline range. The fact that Overstreet killed Taffy in the process of absconding from parole is directly germane to several § 3553(a) factors, including the “history and characteristics of the defendant,” and the need for the sentence to “promote respect for the law,” “afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct,” and “protect the public from further crimes of the defendant.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1)-(2). 14 12 We recognize that the district court stated that it would have imposed the same sentence even without considering Taffy’s murder. Because the district court’s consideration of the murder was proper, we need not, and do not, decide whether the 420-month sentence would have been reasonable otherwise. 13 The government had earlier objected to Overstreet’s offense level as calculated in the PSI, arguing that his initial offense level should have been 34 rather than 33, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4(b)(3)(A), because Overstreet possessed the gun “in connection with” a crime of violence, i.e., Taffy’s murder. The district court overruled the government’s objection at sentencing, finding that there was insufficient evidence to show that Overstreet possessed the gun “in connection with” Taffy’s murder. The district court reasoned that there was no evidence as to how Taffy was killed or how Overstreet came to possess the gun, aside from Overstreet’s statement that the gun belonged to Taffy’s son Rawls. 14 We point out that the concept of “relevant conduct” under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3 pertains to determining the appropriate offense level, which is then used to calculate the guideline range. In 21 Case: 11-16031 Date Filed: 03/28/2013 Page: 22 of 26 The question becomes, then, whether the district court placed undue weight on the murder. We think not. Obviously, the fact that Overstreet murdered his wife and stole her belongings to escape parole not only casts a very negative light on Overstreet’s character, but also demonstrates the need for a lengthy sentence to protect the public from the defendant. Overstreet’s dangerous nature is further reflected in his criminal history— another factor heavily emphasized by the district court. Although four of Overstreet’s five prior convictions occurred as a result of a two-day crime spree, that crime spree was exceptionally violent and heinous. Overstreet and his brother Carter (1) stole 13 guns and a car from a residence; (2) shot at police officers who stopped them, hitting one in the head; and (3) kidnapped a young woman, brutally raped her twice, and shot her in the back multiple times. Overstreet and Carter did not finish that murder only because they thought the woman was going to die anyway, although, contrary to their expectations, she miraculously survived. Needless to say, Overstreet’s and Carter’s conduct showed an incredibly cold- contrast, here, even if Overstreet’s murder of Taffy was completely unrelated to his offense of conviction, this conduct may be considered as part of the defendant’s “history and characteristics” and other § 3553(a) factors and, thus, may be considered in imposing a variance. See United States v. Amedeo, 487 F.3d 823, 830 (11th Cir. 2007) (holding that this Court’s preBooker mandate to consider only “relevant conduct” in calculating the defendant’s sentence “did not apply to the district court’s imposition of a variance based on § 3553(a)”). 22 Case: 11-16031 Date Filed: 03/28/2013 Page: 23 of 26 blooded disregard for human life, which made Overstreet’s illegal possession of the firearm all the more troubling. Overstreet contends that, in focusing on his past criminal conduct, the district court lost sight of the mild nature of the offense of conviction. Overstreet notes that he was stopped in Jacksonville without incident, consented to the search of his car, acknowledged possession of the single gun found in the trunk of his car, and pled guilty to the offense. Overstreet also argues that the district court placed undue emphasis on the need for deterrence and the fact that he was on parole when he committed the offense of conviction. Overstreet’s arguments are wholly unpersuasive. Although the district court must evaluate all § 3553(a) factors in imposing a sentence, it is “permitted to attach ‘great weight’ to one factor over others.” See Shaw, 560 F.3d at 1237; see also United States v. Clay, 483 F.3d 739, 743 (11th Cir. 2007) (“The weight to be accorded any given § 3553(a) factor is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the district court . . . .” (internal quotation marks omitted)). In this particular case, given Overstreet’s murder of Taffy and his past violent criminal conduct, the need for deterrence and public protection were entitled to great weight. Overstreet was punished with a 60-year total sentence for his 1986 crime spree. After serving 22 years of that sentence in state prison, at age 49, Overstreet received another chance at life in society and was released on parole 23 Case: 11-16031 Date Filed: 03/28/2013 Page: 24 of 26 under strict conditions. Yet the time Overstreet spent in prison, his advancing age, and the intensive parole supervision had no deterrent effect on his violent nature and willingness to kill. Two years after being released, at age 51, he murdered his wife Taffy, stole her car and personal belongings, and absconded from parole while in possession of a loaded firearm. All of this shows that virtually no amount of time in prison would deter Overstreet from committing violent crimes, and that he would still present a grave danger to the public if released from prison, no matter how restrictive his conditions of release might be. Overstreet’s cooperation with police after his arrest in Jacksonville does not mitigate the need for deterrence and protection of the public. Overstreet may well have cooperated with police after his 1986 crime spree and during his subsequent time in prison. This did not necessarily mean that Overstreet was no longer willing to kill or commit other crimes, given that he murdered Taffy, absconded from parole, and illegally possessed a loaded gun. In light of these particular facts, Overstreet’s cooperation with the police in Jacksonville has little or no bearing on his propensity to violate the law. Thus, the district court acted well within its discretion in saying that no sentence short of one that amounts to life imprisonment would ensure adequate deterrence and protect the public from Overstreet’s further crimes. 24 Case: 11-16031 Date Filed: 03/28/2013 Page: 25 of 26 As another challenge to the weight given to his criminal history, Overstreet argues that the district court essentially triple-counted his prior convictions by using them to (1) enhance his sentence under the ACCA and “shatter” the otherwise-applicable mandatory minimum, (2) depart upwards one criminal history category under § 4A1.3, and (3) vary upwards from the guideline range. This argument is meritless. The ACCA mandates a particular statutory sentencing range (15 years to life imprisonment) for defendants with three previous violent felony convictions, and nothing in our case law prohibits a district court from considering the nature of those prior convictions to determine the appropriate sentence within that statutory range. Indeed, this Court has previously stated that “a district court can rely on factors in imposing a variance that it had already considered in imposing [a guideline] enhancement.” United States v. Rodriguez, 628 F.3d 1258, 1264 (11th Cir. 2010).15 For all of the above reasons, the district court did not abuse its discretion in weighing the § 3553(a) factors and imposing an above-guideline sentence of 420 15 We also note that the district court’s upward departure under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3 to criminal history category VI, imposed due to Overstreet’s prior convictions and his status as a parolee when he committed the present offense, had no effect on Overstreet’s sentence. The court stated that it would have imposed the same 420-month sentence even without that departure. Accordingly, any alleged error in using Overstreet’s prior convictions to depart upwards under § 4A1.3 was harmless. See United States v. Barner, 572 F.3d 1239, 1248 (11th Cir. 2009) (“A Sentencing Guidelines miscalculation is harmless if the district court would have imposed the same sentence without the error.”). 25 Case: 11-16031 Date Filed: 03/28/2013 Page: 26 of 26 months in prison. See Shaw, 560 F.3d at 1237; Clay, 483 F.3d at 743. In fact, we have previously affirmed as reasonable upward variances of similar extent. See United States v. Early, 686 F.3d 1219, 1221-23 (11th Cir. 2012) (affirming a 210month sentence for bank robbery despite the guideline range of 78 to 97 months); Shaw, 560 F.3d at 1239-41 (upholding a 120-month sentence for a felon-inpossession conviction where the guideline range called for 30 to 37 months); United States v. Amedeo, 487 F.3d 823, 827-28, 834 (11th Cir. 2007) (upholding a 120-month sentence for cocaine distribution where the guideline range was 37 to 46 months); United States v. Turner, 474 F.3d 1265, 1273-74, 1281 (11th Cir. 2007) (affirming a 240-month sentence for mail theft and related offenses despite a guideline range of 51 to 63 months). AFFIRMED. 26