Opinion ID: 146169
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The District Court Correctly Interpreted Section 924, and Phaknikone's Sentence Is Reasonable.

Text: Phaknikone's remaining arguments challenge the length of his sentence. He raises three objections. All fail. Phaknikone argues, on the basis of prefatory language in the statute, see 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A), that a sentence for multiple violations of section 924 is capped at 25 years of imprisonment. We rejected this argument in our recent decision in United States v. Tate, 586 F.3d 936, 945-47 (11th Cir.2009). See also United States v. Segarra, 582 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir.2009). Section 924 requires consecutive sentences for Phaknikone's convictions under that statute. Phaknikone also argues that, because each count under section 924 was charged in a single indictment, the district court erroneously applied the higher mandatory minimum of 25 years of imprisonment for a second or subsequent conviction, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(C), to six of his seven convictions. We long ago rejected this argument, as Phaknikone concedes. See United States v. Rawlings, 821 F.2d 1543, 1545 (11th Cir.1987); see also Deal v. United States, 508 U.S. 129, 113 S.Ct. 1993, 124 L.Ed.2d 44 (1993). Section 924 requires a minimum sentence of 25 years for all subsequent convictions under the statute. Phaknikone finally argues that his sentence of 2,005 months of imprisonment is substantively unreasonable and greater than necessary, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), but we disagree. Phaknikone has not proved that his sentence for the underlying convictions is unreasonable in the light of both [the] record and the factors in section 3553(a), Talley, 431 F.3d at 788, and statutory minimum sentences, as provided in section 924, still must be applied even though the Sentencing Guidelines are now only advisory, see United States v. Castaing-Sosa, 530 F.3d 1358, 1362 (11th Cir. 2008). Phaknikone was a repeat offender recently released from prison when he committed these seven armed bank robberies. Phaknikone has directed us to nothing in the record or the section 3553(a) factors that militates against a within-guidelines sentence.