Court Opinion

ID: 9375959
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-01 16:00:29.16771+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:03.171621
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 22-1240        Document: 010110819657    Date Filed: 03/01/2023     Page: 1
                                                                                   FILED
                                                                       United States Court of Appeals
                          UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       Tenth Circuit

                                FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                         March 1, 2023
                            _________________________________
                                                                          Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                              Clerk of Court
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

           Plaintiff - Appellee,                              No. 22-1240
                                                    (D.C. No. 1:22-CR-00046-RM-1)
  v.                                                           (D. Colo.)

  DAEVON HOUSE,

           Defendant - Appellant.
                          _________________________________

                                ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                            _________________________________

 Before MATHESON, BRISCOE, and EID, Circuit Judges.
                   _________________________________

       Daevon House pled guilty to possessing a firearm and ammunition as a felon

 in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court sentenced him to 91 months

 in prison, one month below the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“U.S.S.G.” or

 “Guidelines”) range. On appeal, he challenges the substantive reasonableness of his

 sentence. Aplt. Br. at 2-3. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we

 affirm.

       *
         After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
 unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
 argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
 submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent,
 except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It
 may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Appellate Case: 22-1240    Document: 010110819657        Date Filed: 03/01/2023    Page: 2

                                  I. BACKGROUND

       Law enforcement officers stopped a vehicle in which Mr. House was a

 passenger. He exited the vehicle and ran away on foot, carrying a firearm. Officers

 pursued and eventually caught up to Mr. House, who threw the firearm to the ground.

 After they arrested him, the officers discovered the firearm was loaded and that Mr.

 House had previously been convicted of a felony offense.

       Mr. House was indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm and

 ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He pled guilty under a plea

 agreement.

       The Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”) calculated Mr. House’s offense

 level as 23 and his criminal history category as VI, resulting in a Guidelines range of

 92 to 115 months of imprisonment. His criminal history included a second-degree

 assault offense that he committed when he was 14 years old. Mr. House objected to

 the PSR, arguing the second-degree assault offense was a juvenile conviction, so his

 criminal history category should be V rather than VI.

       Mr. House also filed a sentencing statement requesting a downward departure.

 He argued that even if the second-degree assault offense was an adult conviction, he

 was only 14 and thus his criminal history category overrepresented the seriousness of

 his criminal history.

       Mr. House also asked for a downward variance based on his abusive

 childhood. As he recounted in his brief, he “was exposed early in his life to criminal

 behavior, drugs, and gang culture,” and “felt rejected by his parents, unsafe in the

                                            2
Appellate Case: 22-1240    Document: 010110819657        Date Filed: 03/01/2023    Page: 3

 world, and was subjected to both physical and sexual trauma.” Aplt. Br. at 13.

 Mr. House also submitted letters from his wife and aunt, who both said that he was a

 decent person and had made serious efforts at rehabilitation.

       At the sentencing hearing, the district court overruled Mr. House’s objection to

 the PSR, finding the second-degree assault offense was an adult conviction under the

 Guidelines. The court denied Mr. House’s request for a downward departure, but it

 granted a downward variance of one month below the low-end of the Guidelines

 range. The court imposed a 91-month prison sentence. This appeal followed.

                                     II. DISCUSSION

       Mr. House argues his sentence was substantively unreasonable. We “review[]

 the substantive reasonableness of a district court’s sentence for abuse of discretion,

 giving substantial deference to the district court[].” United States v. Maldonado-

 Passage, 56 F.4th 830, 842 (10th Cir. 2022). A sentence is substantively

 unreasonable “only if it is arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or manifestly

 unreasonable.” United States v. Gantt, 679 F.3d 1240, 1249 (10th Cir. 2012). And if

 a sentence falls below the Guidelines range, it is presumptively reasonable. United

 States v. Balbin-Mesa, 643 F.3d 783, 788 (10th Cir. 2011). The party challenging the

 sentence bears the burden of rebutting this presumption. United States v. Kristl, 437

 F.3d 1050, 1054 (10th Cir. 2006).

       The district court imposed a below-Guidelines sentence. ROA, Vol. III at

 65-66. Mr. House must therefore show it was “manifestly unreasonable.” Gantt, 679

 F.3d at 1249. He argues the district court gave inadequate weight to evidence of

                                            3
Appellate Case: 22-1240     Document: 010110819657        Date Filed: 03/01/2023      Page: 4

 (1) his abusive childhood, Aplt. Br. at 12-15; and (2) his efforts at rehabilitation

 through education. Id. at 15-16.

       The district court did not abuse its discretion. It considered the PSR, “all

 matters related to that report, that have been filed by the parties,” and “the statements

 and arguments of counsel”—which included Mr. House’s evidence of childhood

 trauma and rehabilitation. ROA, Vol. III at 62. The court also stated it considered

 Mr. House’s relative youth when he committed the second-degree assault, noting that

 “14 is real young.” Id. at 65. But the court also noted that Mr. House’s youth when

 he committed a serious and troubling crime “cuts in a lot of different ways for me.”

 Id. The court observed that Mr. House’s criminal history, coupled with other

 information presented at sentencing, reflected “dangerousness, [which] is something

 that does attach with a high degree of concern to Mr. House . . . .” Id. The court

 therefore balanced Mr. House’s traumatic upbringing and efforts at rehabilitation

 against his troubling criminal history. Id. It then imposed a sentence with a small

 downward variance. Id. Paying “substantial deference to the district court[],”

 Maldonado-Passage, 56 F.4th at 842, we cannot say the court’s weighing of the

 relevant factors was “arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or manifestly unreasonable.”

 Gantt, 679 F.3d at 1249.

                                             4
Appellate Case: 22-1240   Document: 010110819657     Date Filed: 03/01/2023   Page: 5

                               III. CONCLUSION

       We affirm Mr. House’s sentence.

                                         Entered for the Court

                                         Scott M. Matheson, Jr.
                                         Circuit Judge

                                         5