Opinion ID: 4109004
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Two Statutory, Mandatory Minimum

Text: Sentences For Use of a Firearm Thomas’s crimes included two armed robberies. Congress has determined that a minimum term of 7 years must be imposed for the use of a firearm in a crime of violence. 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). In the case of a second conviction for the use of a firearm in a crime of violence, Congress has imposed a minimum sentence of 25 years. 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(C)(i). The parties in this case 10 UNITED STATES V. THOMAS do not dispute that robbery is a crime of violence. 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(D). Because a firearm was used in the January 21 robbery, Thomas received a minimum sentence of 7 years. For the use of a firearm in the February 29 robbery, Thomas received a minimum sentence of 25 years. The mandatory minimum sentences are to be served consecutively, and are in addition to the sentences for the underlying crimes. 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(D)(ii) (“no term of imprisonment on a person under this [statute] shall run concurrently with any other term of imprisonment imposed on the person”). B. The Sentences for the Six Underlying Robbery and Conspiracy Counts While the court had no discretion with respect to the mandatory minimums, see United States v. Valente, 961 F.2d 133, 134 (9th Cir. 1992), the district court had some discretion in sentencing Thomas for the six underlying counts of robbery and conspiracy. The Guidelines are advisory, see United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 243–44 (2005), and set forth sentencing ranges. The district court chose to sentence Thomas at the low end of the applicable Guidelines range. The Guidelines calculation begins with an examination of the defendant’s criminal history. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1. Thomas was assigned the lowest criminal history category because of his limited criminal record. When he was 14, he was arrested for putting his fist through a door. The records for this offense have been purged. When Thomas was 18, he was convicted of disturbing the peace, but it was a misdemeanor. His criminal history category was I. See U.S.S.G. §§ 4A1, 5A. UNITED STATES V. THOMAS 11 The Guidelines call for related counts to be grouped together. See U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2. In this case, the underlying counts were put in groups representing each of the robberies. Group 1 included the conspiracy to commit bank robbery and armed bank robbery of the Wells Fargo Bank in Sun City, Arizona. Group 2 included the conspiracy to commit bank robbery and bank robbery of the Wells Fargo Bank in Surprise, Arizona. Group 3 included the conspiracy to commit bank robbery and armed bank robbery of the Chase Bank in Peoria, Arizona. According to the Guidelines, the base offense level for each of these Groups was 20. U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(a). The Guidelines then call for consideration of the nature of the crimes and the defendant’s role in them. See U.S.S.G. §§ 2B3.1(b), 3B1.1. Because the property of a financial institution was taken, two levels were added to all Groups. U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(1). Because Thomas was the organizer or leader of a criminal activity that involved five or more participants, four levels were added to all Groups. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a). Because bank employees were abducted in their commission, four levels were added to Groups 1 and 3, the armed robberies. U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(4)(A). Because the amount of loss was $246,952.92 (more than $95,000 and less than $500,000) in the Chase Bank armed robbery, two levels were added to Group 3. U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(7)(C). The Guidelines sentence must be computed on the basis of a single offense level, so the court had to determine an adjusted offense level, taking into account the levels for all relevant groups. U.S.S.G. § 3D1.4. In order to determine the adjusted offense level, the court must identify the offense level applicable to the most serious Group. See U.S.S.G. § 3D1.3. In this case, the Chase Bank robbery was the most 12 UNITED STATES V. THOMAS serious because the greatest amount of money was taken. To take into account the other Groups and the extent to which they were comparable in seriousness to the Chase Bank Group, various adjustments were made that are not disputed here. This brought the combined adjusted offense level to 35. See U.S.S.G. § 3D1.4. Given a total offense level of 35 for the six counts of conspiracy to rob and robbery of the banks, and a criminal history category of I, the Guidelines imprisonment range, as calculated in the pre-sentence report, was 168 months to 210 months. U.S.S.G. § 5A. Its correctness is not disputed. The district court then found that Thomas committed perjury when he testified during his trial. The district court therefore added a two point enhancement for obstruction of justice to the combined adjusted offense level. U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. This is not challenged on appeal. The new offense level was thus 37. On the basis of a total offense level of 37 and a criminal history category of I, the Guidelines imprisonment range was 210 months to 262 months. The district court sentenced at the low end, and Thomas received a total sentence of 210 months on the six underlying robbery and conspiracy counts. At sentencing, defense counsel had asked for a reduction below the Guidelines range on the underlying counts, but the court responded that the low end of the Guidelines range in this case was a reasonable sentence for convictions of conspiracy to rob and robbery of three different banks, in all of which Thomas played the major organizational role. By statute, the sentence had to be imposed to run consecutively to the statutory, mandatory minimums. See UNITED STATES V. THOMAS 13 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(D)(ii). The mandatory minimums totaled 32 years. This brought the total sentence to 49.5 years. On appeal, although none of the calculations are challenged, Thomas contends the resulting sentence was substantively unreasonable. He argues that a 49.5 year sentence is disproportionate to the crimes for which he was convicted. We conclude that the district court did not err in imposing the sentence it did. In reaching this conclusion, we are mindful that the district court had no discretion whatsoever to disregard the impact of the statutory, mandatory minimums. See Valente, 961 F.2d at 134. Since the Guidelines are advisory, see Booker, 543 U.S. at 243–44, the court’s only discretion lay in the imposition of Guidelines sentences for the conspiracies and robberies themselves. And here, it sentenced at the low end of the Guidelines range.