Court Opinion

ID: 9965371
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-02 15:00:51.763561+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:56.067104
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12471    Document: 35-1     Date Filed: 05/02/2024   Page: 1 of 6

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-12471
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       MICHAEL JACKSON,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                    D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cr-20587-DLG-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-12471     Document: 35-1     Date Filed: 05/02/2024    Page: 2 of 6

       2                     Opinion of the Court                22-12471

       Before NEWSOM, GRANT, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Michael Jackson appeals his 144-month sentence for carjack-
       ing on substantive unreasonableness grounds. Jackson argues that
       the district court improperly balanced the 18 U.S.C. section 3553(a)
       sentencing factors by failing to adequately weigh his longstanding
       struggles with substance addiction and mental illness. After careful
       review, we affirm.
           FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

              In April 2022, Jackson pleaded guilty to carjacking. At his
       sentencing hearing, the district court adopted Jackson’s presen-
       tence investigation report, which—based on a total offense level of
       26 and a criminal history category of VI—calculated a sentencing
       guideline range of 120 to 150 months’ imprisonment.

              The presentence investigation report, which Jackson did not
       object to, detailed his decades-long criminal history. Jackson had
       been convicted of multiple vehicle thefts, multiple burglaries, drug
       possession, strongarm robbery, aggravated battery with a firearm,
       and aggravated battery causing great bodily harm. The report also
       noted Jackson’s longstanding struggles with bipolar disorder, schiz-
       ophrenia, suicidal ideation, alcohol addiction, and substance abuse.
             The district court heard both parties’ arguments “regarding
       an appropriate sentence.” Jackson requested a 120-month sentence
USCA11 Case: 22-12471      Document: 35-1     Date Filed: 05/02/2024     Page: 3 of 6

       3                      Opinion of the Court                 22-12471

       at the bottom of the guideline range, while the government argued
       for a 150-month sentence at the top of the range. In responding to
       the government’s argument, the district court noted the challenge
       of balancing public safety with Jackson’s mental health struggles:
             It’s an awful dilemma because I have the public to be
             concerned about and looking at [Jackson’s] record,
             I’m very concerned about the safety of the public. It
             just appears that [Jackson] cannot conduct himself in
             accordance with the law, and so I understand [the gov-
             ernment’s] argument for a sentence at the top end of
             the guidelines. Absent these mental health issues, I
             would have no hesitation in imposing such a sen-
             tence. I do have a little hesitation because it’s obvious
             that some of these issues are related to mental prob-
             lems.

       The district court ultimately imposed a 144-month sentence, fol-
       lowed by three years’ supervised release. It noted that it had con-
       templated the section 3553(a) factors, the parties’ statements, and
       the presentence investigation report and found that “a sentence
       within the guideline range [wa]s sufficient punishment and deter-
       rence.” See § 3553(a)(2)(A)–(C). This is Jackson’s appeal.

                           STANDARD OF REVIEW

              We evaluate the substantive reasonableness of a sentence
       under a “deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” See Gall v.
       United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). We consider the totality of the
       circumstances and whether the sentence achieves the purposes of
USCA11 Case: 22-12471      Document: 35-1      Date Filed: 05/02/2024     Page: 4 of 6

       4                      Opinion of the Court                  22-12471

       sentencing stated in 18 U.S.C. section 3553(a). See United States v.
       Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319, 1324 (11th Cir. 2008). “[T]he party chal-
       lenging the sentence bears the burden to show that it is unreason-
       able in light of the record and the [section] 3553(a) factors.” United
       States v. Shabazz, 887 F.3d 1204, 1224 (11th Cir. 2018) (citation omit-
       ted). We will disturb a sentence only if “we are left with the defi-
       nite and firm conviction that the district court committed a clear
       error of judgment in weighing the [section] 3553(a) factors by ar-
       riving at a sentence that lies outside the range of reasonable sen-
       tences dictated by the facts of the case.” United States v. Irey, 612
       F.3d 1160, 1190 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (quotation omitted).
                                  DISCUSSION

               Section 3553(a) requires a sentencing court to consider “the
       nature and circumstances of the offense,” “the history and charac-
       teristics of the defendant,” “the kinds of sentences available,” the
       guideline range, policy statements of the United States Sentencing
       Commission, “the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing dispari-
       ties,” and “the need to provide restitution to any victims.”
       § 3553(a)(1), (3)–(7). A sentence must also comport with the statu-
       tory purposes of sentencing, which include promoting respect for
       the law, providing just punishment, deterring criminal conduct,
       protecting the public from further crimes, and providing the de-
       fendant with needed correctional treatment. Id. § 3553(a)(2)(A)–
       (D).
              Jackson raises two arguments on appeal. First, he contends
       that the district court “gave insufficient weight to the [section]
USCA11 Case: 22-12471      Document: 35-1     Date Filed: 05/02/2024     Page: 5 of 6

       5                      Opinion of the Court                 22-12471

       3553(a) sentencing factors justifying a lower sentence,” specifically
       his “severe substance abuse and mental health issues.” Jackson
       claims that these factors warranted a sentence near the low end of
       the guideline range. Second, he argues that the district court
       abused its discretion by considering his criminal history, career of-
       fender status, and the seriousness of his conduct under section
       3553(a), because those factors were already taken into account as
       part of his criminal history score and guideline range.
               Neither argument is persuasive. First, the district court ad-
       equately weighed his mental health issues when considering the
       section 3553(a) sentencing factors. The district court specifically
       stated that, due to Jackson’s criminal history, it would’ve sentenced
       him at the top of the guideline range “absent [his] mental health
       issues.” It then imposed a sentence below the top of the range.
       And the district court recommended that Jackson be incarcerated
       in a facility that “can treat persons with moderate to severe mental
       illness.”
               Jackson’s second argument—that the district court abused
       its discretion by considering his criminal history, career offender
       status, and the seriousness of his conduct under section 3553(a),
       when his criminal history score and guideline range already ac-
       counted for those factors—also fails. District courts’ “discretion in
       weighing sentencing factors is particularly pronounced when it
       comes to weighing criminal history,” and we have held that “[p]lac-
       ing substantial weight on a defendant’s criminal record is entirely
       consistent with [section] 3553(a) . . . .” United States v. Riley, 995
USCA11 Case: 22-12471     Document: 35-1      Date Filed: 05/02/2024    Page: 6 of 6

       6                      Opinion of the Court                22-12471

       F.3d 1272, 1279 (11th Cir. 2021) (quotation marks and citations
       omitted). Here, the district court weighed the factors, balanced
       Jackson’s personal characteristics with his criminal history, and im-
       posed a sentence that was below the top end of the sentencing
       guideline range. The record leaves us with no “definite and firm
       conviction that the district court committed a clear error of judg-
       ment.” See Irey, 612 F.3d at 1190.
             Because the district court abused no discretion in imposing
       Jackson’s sentence, we affirm.
             AFFIRMED.