Opinion ID: 2982715
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Mtola’s Sentence

Text: At sentencing, the district court stated that the guideline range is “12 to 18 months for Counts 1 and 2. Counts 3 and 4 are 12 months. The statutory provisions for Counts 1 and 2 are zero to ten years and Counts 3 and 4 zero to one year for this particular offense.” The court sentenced Mtola to thirty-six months for Count 1, thirty-six months for Count 2 and a total of twelve months for Counts 3 and 4. The court ordered that the sentence be served concurrently–– for a total term of thirty-six months of incarceration. We “review a district court’s sentencing determination, ‘under a deferential abuse-ofdiscretion standard,’ for reasonableness.” United States v. Bolds, 511 F.3d 568, 578 (6th Cir. 2007) (quoting Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007)). The reasonableness review includes a procedural component and a substantive component. Id. 1 A video confirms that a struggle ensued in the booking room. - 11 - Case No. 14-3262 United States of America v. Mtola For a sentence to be procedurally reasonable, the district court “must properly calculate the guidelines range, treat the guidelines as advisory, consider the § 3553(a) factors and adequately explain the chosen sentence – including an explanation for any variance from the guidelines range.” United States v. Grossman, 513 F.3d 592, 595 (6th Cir. 2008) (citing Gall, 552 U.S. at 51). After imposing the sentence, the court must “ask the parties whether they have any objections to the sentence . . . that have not previously been raised.” United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382, 385 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (quoting United States v. Bostic, 371 F.3d 865, 872 (6th Cir. 2004)). If the defendant fails to object, we review procedural challenges to sentences for plain error. Id. If there is no procedural defect, then we will review the sentence for substantive reasonableness. Grossman, 513 F.3d at 595 (citing Gall, 552 U.S. at 51). “A sentence is substantively unreasonable if the district court selects a sentence arbitrarily, bases the sentence on impermissible factors, fails to consider relevant sentencing factors, or gives an unreasonable amount of weight to any pertinent factor.” United States v. Jeter, 721 F.3d 746, 757 (6th Cir. 2013) (quoting United States v. Shaw, 707 F.3d 666, 674 (6th Cir. 2013)). Moreover, “[a] sentence falling within the Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable; one falling outside the Guidelines range carries no such presumption.” Id. (citing United States v. Herrera-Zuniga, 571 F.3d 568, 582 (6th Cir. 2009)). Rather, we apply “a form of proportionality review to sentences outside the Guidelines range, so that the greater the variance from the range, the more compelling the justification for variance must be.” Herrera-Zuniga, 571 F.3d at 590 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). - 12 - Case No. 14-3262 United States of America v. Mtola
Mtola concedes that he did not raise his procedural challenge before the district court, even after being given an opportunity to do so. Consequently, we review for plain error. Mtola’s challenge to the procedural reasonableness of his sentence fails under plain-error review because the district court: (1) properly calculated the guideline range; (2) treated the guideline range as advisory; (3) considered the statutory factors, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); and (4) explained the variance from the guidelines. First, Mtola agreed that the court accurately calculated the guidelines range during the sentencing hearing. Second, the district court treated the guidelines as advisory by sentencing Mtola outside of the guideline range. Third, while Mtola attempts to argue that the district court did not consider the § 3553(a) factors, the sentencing transcript reveals otherwise, and any inquiry into the quality of the court’s evaluation of the factors is considered as part of the substantive reasonableness review. Fourth, the court provided several reasons in support of an upward variance. Accordingly, Mtola’s sentence was procedurally reasonable. The district court did not err, let alone commit plain error.
Next we address Mtola’s argument that his thirty-six month sentence, which exceeded the advisory guidelines range, is substantively unreasonable. Mtola makes two arguments in support of his position. First, he argues that the district court failed to give adequate weight to his history and background. Second, he argues that the district court failed to justify the upward variance. The district court considered Mtola’s “history and characteristics,” a relevant § 3553(a) factor. It considered Mtola’s “prior record, violence, physical abuse, diminished capacity, - 13 - Case No. 14-3262 United States of America v. Mtola employment, age, substance abuse and family ties.” The court noted that Mtola has no prior convictions, no history of violence and no evidence of suffering from any abuse. Importantly, the court recognized Mtola’s claims of a difficult childhood in South Africa: [Mtola] appears to – or at least claims to have a difficult childhood as a result of conditions in South Africa. It is difficult to verify whether indeed the representations he has made are accurate or not. He claims, his family moved several times in order to avoid what Mr. Mtola claims is harassment by law enforcement. The fact that the court found Mtola’s evidence about his upbringing in South Africa unpersuasive does not mean that it failed to consider the evidence. Rather, it means the court afforded little weight to that evidence. The district court acknowledged that Mtola was a high school graduate with a degree in business management and another degree as a nursing assistant. The court discussed Mtola’s history of steady employment during his time in the United States. It also considered the fact that Mtola did not report using any illegal substances. All of these factors about Mtola’s history and background were considered by the court when it sentenced him to thirty-six months of incarceration. In sum, Mtola’s argument is that the district court erred in not giving his history and background the weight that he believed it deserved. See United States v. Ely, 468 F.3d 399, 404 (6th Cir. 2006) (recognizing that balancing the § 3553(a) factors “is simply beyond the scope of our appellate review, which looks to whether the sentence is reasonable, as opposed to whether in the first instance we would have imposed the same sentence”). This argument is without merit. Mtola also claims that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the court failed to justify the upward variance. The sentencing transcript does not support Mtola’s argument. As - 14 - Case No. 14-3262 United States of America v. Mtola outlined below, the court explained the need for an upward variance in the context of the § 3553(a) factors. The court first noted that Mtola expressed no remorse––either in writing or during the trial. It based the upward variance in part on the fact that it afforded little weight to Mtola’s testimony. Specifically, the court stated that: [A]lthough there is no enhancement based on his testimony, I have no doubt in my mind that his testimony here before the Court was patently false. He knew all too well that he exhausted all of his efforts before the immigration court. It was simply a ruse and a falsehood to try and do everything in his power to delay his removal. The officers gave him every opportunity to contact his attorney. There was no testimony by any attorney here in open court about the fact that he had some viable appeal remaining. Certainly by his second – certainly by the April 22 date by which the officers tried to remove him, he knew full well that there was no valid basis for remaining – any reason to remain in this country. Despite this, as the court noted, Mtola continued to take any and all steps to remain in the United States. The court’s discussion of Mtola’s continued resistance to depart indicates that it took into account Mtola’s lack of respect for the law, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A), when it imposed a sentence above the guidelines range. Most importantly, the court justified the upward variance based on its view that Mtola would not be deterred by a sentence within the guidelines range. It indicated that Mtola had resisted removal not once but twice. The court stated that it “suspect[s] that [Mtola] will continue, despite his conviction, to fail to be removed from this country and do everything in his power to resist. Nothing he has said or done gives me any – any likelihood that indeed he will cooperate.” Although Mtola claims that this is speculation, the record supports the trial court’s concern. The sentencing factors require the court to evaluate the likelihood that Mtola will re- - 15 - Case No. 14-3262 United States of America v. Mtola offend. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(B). The court concluded that “[Mtola] is an individual . . . who, again, certainly will not be deterred by a guideline sentence. And perhaps a lengthier term of incarceration will meet the purposes of the sentencing statute, just punishment and adequate deterrence, to deter him from resisting further removal.” The court based its upward variance in part on its determination that Mtola will continue to resist deportation and will not be deterred by a sentence within the guidelines range. In sum, the district court concluded that the upward variance was necessary based on Mtola’s continued resistance to removal and increased risk of recidivism. Based on the foregoing, we cannot say that the variance constitutes an abuse of discretion. AFFIRMED. - 16 -