Court Opinion

ID: 9386075
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-11 14:00:25.631249+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:27.955339
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-10440    Document: 44-1     Date Filed: 04/11/2023   Page: 1 of 9

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-10440
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiff-Appellee,
       versus
       RONALD HUE BURCH,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                   D.C. Docket No. 1:01-cr-00763-FAM-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-10440     Document: 44-1      Date Filed: 04/11/2023    Page: 2 of 9

       2                      Opinion of the Court                22-10440

       Before ROSENBAUM, BRANCH, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Ronald Burch violated the conditions of his supervised re-
       lease by committing two robberies—one armed. The district court
       revoked Burch’s supervised release and sentenced Burch to the
       statutory maximum terms—sixty months’ incarceration followed
       by a lifetime of supervised release. Seeing no reversible error, we
       affirm.
                             I.      INTRODUCTION
              In 2001, Burch was indicted on six counts for, in broad
       strokes, distributing cocaine. Burch pled guilty to two counts: con-
       spiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more
       of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and carrying and pos-
       sessing a firearm during and in relation to a drug-trafficking crime,
       in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). The district court sentenced
       Burch to 15 years for the first count and 5 years on the other, for a
       total of 20 years, plus five years’ supervised release. Burch was re-
       leased in March 2019. He served two-and-a-half years on super-
       vised release without incident.
              But in October 2021, Burch was arrested on two state
       charges: “Attempted Robbery Armed”—based on a September 29,
       2021, incident at a gas station—and “Robbery Armed with a Fire-
       arm”—based on an October 12, 2021, incident at a smoke shop.
       Burch’s probation officer petitioned to revoke Burch’s supervised
USCA11 Case: 22-10440      Document: 44-1     Date Filed: 04/11/2023     Page: 3 of 9

       22-10440               Opinion of the Court                         3

       release based on the arrest. The district court set a final revocation
       hearing on the petition.
               At the hearing, the government called Jason Couto, a rob-
       bery detective with the Hialeah police department. Beginning with
       the smoke-shop robbery, Detective Couto testified, based on his
       investigation, that Burch had entered the store and demanded
       money from the cashier at gun point. Burch also pointed the gun
       at a patron in the shop. When the cashier refused to open the reg-
       ister, Burch left the store. The government introduced video and
       fingerprint evidence tying Burch to the crime. As to gas-station
       robbery, Detective Couto testified that Burch had entered at 6 a.m.
       and—according to the employees—brandished a firearm at the em-
       ployees and demanded money. The government introduced
       CCTV footage showing a man with a camouflage jacket, white t-
       shirt, and blue jean shorts, although no gun was visible. Detective
       Couto executed a search warrant on Burch’s car and found those
       same items of clothing inside. The district court found by a pre-
       ponderance of the evidence that Burch had committed the smoke-
       shop robbery with a firearm but the gas-station robbery without a
       firearm.
              To decide Burch’s sentence, the district court recalled that it
       had sentenced Burch in 2002 and referred to the old presentencing
       report. That 2002 report revealed that Burch had at least five fel-
       ony convictions; even considering some were too old to be
       counted, Burch had eleven criminal history points and was in crim-
       inal-history category V.
USCA11 Case: 22-10440     Document: 44-1       Date Filed: 04/11/2023      Page: 4 of 9

       4                      Opinion of the Court                   22-10440

             The district court clarified that it was only considering the
       serious offenses. It explained,
             You had possession of a short-barrel shotgun back in
             1988 where you got only four days of jail. You had
             carrying a concealed firearm back in 1989 where you
             got four months in jail with credit time served. I
             know how busy the states were then because I was in
             state court then. But in ‘93, you also had possession
             of a firearm by a convicted felon, and you got 50 days
             jail time. It just seems like a pattern. Skipping every-
             thing else that may not be important—and by the
             way, originally, you didn’t receive any points for
             some of those because they were too old.
       The district court continued,
             You also had possession of a firearm by a violent ca-
             reer criminal in state court in 1996. And you got ten
             years, but then it was mitigated to three years, I as-
             sume, for cooperation, but I don’t know. But there’s
             been – and then, of course, even though there was no
             action, in ‘88, another carrying a concealed firearm.
             And in ‘89, another carrying a concealed weapon. So
             they’re serious offenses. Therefore, although the
             guideline range is pretty high as it is, I’m going to still
             slightly vary upward to the maximum of five years.
USCA11 Case: 22-10440         Document: 44-1         Date Filed: 04/11/2023         Page: 5 of 9

       22-10440                   Opinion of the Court                                5

       Following this discussion, the district court varied upwards from
       Burch’s Guidelines range—46 to 57 months—and sentenced Burch
       to the maximum term of five years’ imprisonment and lifetime su-
       pervised release, explaining, “So I’ll see you if – whenever you get
       out, to see if you’re doing well.” It continued, “And that’s what I'll
       do. So if you get into trouble again, if I’m still here, we’ll meet.
       We’ll deal with it one way or another.” Burch timely appealed.
                      II.     STANDARD OF REVIEW
               We review for an abuse of discretion the procedural and
       substantive reasonableness of the final sentence imposed by the dis-
       trict court. United States v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319, 1323–24 (11th
       Cir. 2008).
                             III. DISCUSSION
              Burch argues that his sentence is procedurally and substan-
       tively unreasonable. We disagree. 1

       1 Two notes before we move to the merits. First, the government contends
       that Burch failed to object to the district court’s sentence, so we should review
       for plain error. We assume without deciding that Burch preserved his claims
       because (1) it makes no difference to the outcome of this appeal and (2) the
       district court did not offer Burch the opportunity to object after imposing the
       sentence and before concluding the hearing.
       Second, Burch argues that we should follow the Second Circuit’s lead and ap-
       ply a “closer look” at the imposition of a lifetime of supervised release. See
       United States v. Brooks, 889 F.3d 95, 101 (2d Cir. 2018) (explaining that “the
       severity of a life sentence of supervised release justifies a closer look at the
       district court’s decision to impose such a sentence”). Again, we will assume
USCA11 Case: 22-10440        Document: 44-1       Date Filed: 04/11/2023        Page: 6 of 9

       6                         Opinion of the Court                    22-10440

                           A. Procedural Reasonableness
              Burch makes two arguments as to how his sentence is pro-
       cedurally unreasonable. First, he says that the district court failed
       to discuss the rehabilitative goals of supervised release and the dis-
       trict court’s statement—that “[i]f [Burch] got in trouble again, if
       [the district court judge was] still” around, they would meet
       again—sounded in punishment. Second, Burch argues that the dis-
       trict court improperly speculated about why Burch had received
       lenient sentences for his state-court convictions.
              When imposing a sentence of supervised release, district
       courts should consider all the Section 3553(a) factors except for Sec-
       tion 3553(a)(2)(A)—the need for punishment. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(c)
       (citing § 3553(a)).
               We disagree that the district court improperly considered
       punishment when imposing Burch’s sentence. The district court’s
       statements—that it would see Burch after release to check on
       whether Burch was “doing well” and that, if Burch reoffended, the
       district court would “deal with it one way or another”—do not
       show that the district court was considering the need to punish
       Burch. Rather, the district court’s statements reflected the fact that
       Burch had a history of violating conditions of supervised release
       and that the district court had overseen Burch’s case since 2001.

       without deciding that a “closer look” is required because it makes no differ-
       ence to the outcome of this appeal.
USCA11 Case: 22-10440      Document: 44-1      Date Filed: 04/11/2023     Page: 7 of 9

       22-10440                Opinion of the Court                         7

               The district court also didn’t improperly speculate that
       Burch received lenient state-court sentences. Read in context, the
       district court’s statements observed that Burch’s conduct
       “seem[ed] like a pattern.” To be sure, it might have been better
       not to speculate that Burch received a shorter sentence “for coop-
       eration, but I don’t know.” But a few throwaway lines do not con-
       vince us that the district court procedurally erred.
                         B. Substantive Reasonableness
                Burch argues that the district court’s sentence was substan-
       tively unreasonable because the district court (1) gave great weight
       to one factor and ignored the other factors (like that Burch was a
       father figure to his fiancée’s children); (2) did not consider the pos-
       sibility of unwarranted sentencing disparities; (3) did not consider
       alternative sentences; (4) did not consider the fact that Burch’s
       crimes didn’t harm anyone; and (5) ignored the fact that he spent
       two years on supervised release without incident. Again, we are
       unpersuaded.
              “To arrive at an appropriate sentence, the district court must
       consider all of the applicable § 3553(a) factors. That does not mean,
       however, that it must give all of the § 3553(a) factors equal weight.
       Instead, the sentencing court is permitted to attach great weight to
       one factor over others. The decision about how much weight to
       assign a particular sentencing factor is committed to the sound dis-
       cretion of the district court. And, importantly, if the sentence is
       outside the Guidelines range, the [reviewing] court may not apply
USCA11 Case: 22-10440        Document: 44-1         Date Filed: 04/11/2023        Page: 8 of 9

       8                         Opinion of the Court                      22-10440

       a presumption of unreasonableness.” United States v. Rosales-
       Bruno, 789 F.3d 1249, 1255 (11th Cir. 2015) (cleaned up).
              Burch’s sentence is not substantively unreasonable. First,
       we are unconvinced by Burch’s argument that the district court did
       not mention his two years of compliance, his status as a father-fig-
       ure, and the fact that his crimes didn’t physically injure anyone be-
       cause district courts aren’t required to explicitly list mitigating evi-
       dence. See United States v. Amedeo, 487 F.3d 823, 833 (11th Cir.
       2007) (“[W]e cannot say that the court’s failure to discuss this ‘mit-
       igating’ evidence means that the court erroneously ‘ignored’ or
       failed to consider this evidence in determining Amedeo’s sen-
       tence.”). The district court heard Burch’s presentation of mitiga-
       tion evidence and request for leniency and considered the Section
       3553(a) factors. That is what it was required to do.
              Second, Burch’s argument that his sentence will create un-
       warranted disparities is unpersuasive. He asserts that his crimes
       were “minor” in that no one was injured or restrained, and his
       crimes failed to obtain money. 2 So, Burch says, other defendants

       2 We disagree with Burch’s characterization that “[n]obody was hurt. Nobody
       was restrained. And very little, if any, money was taken.” Blue Br. at 19.
       While it is good that Burch chose not to fire his gun and no one was physically
       hurt during Burch’s activities, that was not a foregone conclusion when Burch
       decided in the first place to use a gun to conduct his robberies. And in any
       case, being held at gunpoint can surely qualify both as a harm and as a re-
       straint. As for Burch’s lack of success, that does not diminish the danger he
       posed.
USCA11 Case: 22-10440       Document: 44-1        Date Filed: 04/11/2023       Page: 9 of 9

       22-10440                 Opinion of the Court                             9

       who commit similar crimes will receive shorter terms of supervised
       release. Maybe so, but they are not appropriate comparators if they
       don’t also have a similar extensive criminal history like Burch’s.
       Burch has 11 criminal-history points and falls within criminal-his-
       tory category V—and that’s without including prior convictions
       that are too old to count. Burch does not explain why other de-
       fendants with extensive criminal histories could (or would) receive
       shorter terms of supervised release. 3 In short, we conclude that
       the sentence was substantively reasonable.
              AFFIRMED.

       3 As the government points out, if Burch conforms his conduct to the law, he
       can move to terminate his supervised release after one year. See 18 U.S.C.
       § 3583(e)(1).