Opinion ID: 78321
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The District Court's Denial of Defendant's Motion For Variance Was Reasonable

Text: Defendant also appeals the district court's denial of her Motion for Variance from the Sentencing Guidelines. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (permitting variance pursuant to sentencing factors). In addition, she argues that her ultimate sentence was unreasonable. Defendant admits that the district court properly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1) factors regarding the nature and circumstances of her offenses. Nevertheless, she argues that her sentence was unreasonable because the court did not consider the history and characteristics of the defendant: namely, Defendant's diminished capacity, which she says prevented her from accepting guidance from her lawyers. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1). Here, the district court properly calculated Defendant's guideline range: 87 to 108 months. The court then identified Defendant's mandatory minimum sentences. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c), 1028A. After considering the section 3553(a) factorsa consideration noted in the recordthe district court sentenced Defendant to 108 months, to run consecutive to her mandatory sentences. Because the district court sentenced Defendant within a properly calculated guideline range, its decision is presumptively reasonable. See United States v. Johnson, 485 F.3d 1264, 1272 (11th Cir.2007). In the light of the scope and the severity of Defendant's many crimes, we cannot say that the district court imposed an unreasonable sentence. Moreover, the district court was reasonable in its denial of Defendant's Motion for Variance. Defendant's assertion of diminished capacity was contrary to a forty-five day forensic evaluation conducted at Defendant's request. That report concluded that Defendant was likely malingering and that she was possibly motivated by external incentives such as ... evading criminal prosecution. Even Defendant's trial counsel acknowledged that Defendant was entirely capable of rendering valuable assistance in formulating her defense. The district court was reasonable in denying Defendant's motion and in imposing Defendant's sentence. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's sentence. AFFIRMED.