Court Opinion

ID: 9925308
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-19 15:00:57.692412+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:03.593730
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 22-1392     Document: 010110986242        Date Filed: 01/19/2024    Page: 1
                                                                                   FILED
                                                                       United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                          January 19, 2024
                          _________________________________
                                                                           Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                               Clerk of Court
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

        Plaintiff - Appellee,

  v.                                                    Nos. 22-1392 & 22-1442
                                                    (D.C. No. 1:22-CR-00162-RM-1)
  JEFFREY SCOTT TAYLOR,                                        (D. Colo.)

        Defendant - Appellant.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

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

       The district court sentenced Jeffrey Scott Taylor to 108 months of

 incarceration for unlawfully possessing a firearm. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). A

 different district court judge sentenced him to an additional 24 months for violating

 the terms of his supervised release, to be served consecutively. Mr. Taylor has

 appealed from both judgments, but he challenges only the 108-month sentence,

       *
          After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
 unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this
 appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered
 submitted without oral argument, and Mr. Taylor’s motion to schedule oral argument is
 denied. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of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: 22-1392         Document: 010110986242        Date Filed: 01/19/2024   Page: 2

 arguing it is procedurally unreasonable. Exercising jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C.

 § 3742(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

                                       I. BACKGROUND

          Mr. Taylor has a long history of firearm offenses. In 2003, he pled guilty to

 possession of a firearm by a prohibited person in violation of § 922(g)(1). He was

 sentenced to 120 months, to be followed by three years of supervised release. When

 Mr. Taylor completed the prison sentence on August 30, 2012, he began his

 supervised release.

          In 2013, while on supervised release, Mr. Taylor committed and pled guilty to

 a new § 922(g)(1) offense.1 In addition, when the Probation Office sought revocation

 of his supervised release, he admitted to violating his supervised release conditions.

 A presentence investigation report (“PSR”) calculated his Guidelines range as 77 to

 96 months on the § 922(g)(1) offense, and recommended 96 months. District Judge

 Kane sentenced him to 80 months. Judge Kane then revoked his supervised release

 and sentenced him to an additional 12 months, to be served consecutively, for a total

 sentence of 92 months. The judge made the revocation sentence consecutive because

 Mr. Taylor’s firearm offense and other breaches of his supervised release terms

 constituted a “breach of trust with the probation service.” ROA No. 22-1442, Vol. 3

 at 35.

          1
              He also pled guilty to being a felon in possession of ammunition.

                                                 2
Appellate Case: 22-1392    Document: 010110986242       Date Filed: 01/19/2024    Page: 3

         In 2020, Mr. Taylor completed his 2013 prison sentence. In 2022, while on

 supervised release, he committed and pled guilty to yet another § 922(g)(1) offense.

 He also again admitted to violating his supervised release. Judge Moore presided

 over the new § 922(g)(1) case. The revocation proceedings remained with Judge

 Kane.

         Judge Moore sentenced Mr. Taylor first. The PSR calculated his Guidelines

 range for the new § 922(g)(1) conviction at 37 to 46 months.2 But in view of

 Mr. Taylor’s significant criminal history, the Probation Office recommended an

 upward variance to 120 months, the statutory maximum. The Government concurred.

 Mr. Taylor argued for 41 months.

         At the sentencing hearing, the prosecutor mentioned the additional sentence

 Mr. Taylor might receive from Judge Kane at the revocation hearing. Judge Moore

 responded that any additional revocation sentence was not his concern and that it

 would surprise him if Judge Kane gave Mr. Taylor less than the 12-month sentence

 he had imposed for the 2013 revocation. The judge said, “I’m going to do what I’m

 going to do, and then Judge Kane can do [what] . . . he wants to do, given what I’ve

 done.” ROA No. 22-1392, Vol. 3 at 31.

         After hearing argument from defense counsel, Judge Moore remarked that

 Mr. Taylor had been sentenced in 2013 to “92 [months] total, 80 plus 12,” and had

         2
         The advisory Guideline range for the 2022 offense was lower than for the 2013
 offense because the PSR calculated both the criminal offense and history levels to be
 lower than those calculated for the 2013 offense.

                                            3
Appellate Case: 22-1392    Document: 010110986242        Date Filed: 01/19/2024    Page: 4

 completed that sentence, but then “arm[ed] himself” while on supervised release.

 Id. at 40-41. Conceding it would be difficult to justify a within-Guidelines sentence,

 Mr. Taylor’s counsel argued for a sentence within 70 to 87 months. Judge Moore

 responded, “[e]xcept that it’s less than the 92 [months]. Why?” Id. at 47. Counsel

 said the court’s 92-month figure from 2013 included the revocation sentence from

 2013 and that if the court considered the 12-month revocation sentence in addition to

 the 80-month § 922(g)(1) sentence, the court should “include it on both ends.” Id.

 That is, if the court used 92 months as a benchmark for the new sentence on the

 § 922(g)(1) count, it should also account for the anticipated sentence Judge Kane was

 expected to impose in the revocation proceedings.

       Judge Moore disagreed, stating Mr. Taylor was “not looking at it in these little

 individual pots,” but instead at how much total time he has to serve “for having a gun

 on supervised release,” which in the 2013 case was “92 months.” Id. at 48. The

 judge asked, “Why should I give him less than that?” Id. Counsel repeated that it

 was reasonable to expect that Judge Kane would impose at least 12 months and the

 court should take that anticipated sentence into account. Judge Moore responded that

 he was not concerned with what Judge Kane might do, that Mr. Taylor was “a man

 for whom 92 months of imprisonment does nothing,” and that he saw no reason to

 impose fewer than 92 months for the § 922(g)(1) offense. Id.

       After allocution from Mr. Taylor, Judge Moore stated he had considered the

 sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He noted Mr. Taylor’s 30-year history of

 firearms offenses and stated that his record “warrants an at or near statutory

                                            4
Appellate Case: 22-1392     Document: 010110986242         Date Filed: 01/19/2024     Page: 5

 maximum” sentence. ROA No. 22-1392, Vol. 3 at 58. He then imposed a sentence

 of 108 months, explaining the variance was based on “protection of the public,”

 “respect for the law,” “deterrence,” “the nature and circumstances of the offense,”

 and “the relevant conduct in this case.” Id. at 62.

        Five weeks later, Mr. Taylor appeared before Judge Kane for sentencing on the

 supervised release revocation. He did not contest the probation officer’s

 recommendation of 24 months, which is the statutory maximum, but he argued this

 revocation sentence should be concurrent with his 108-month sentence. Judge Kane

 considered the § 3553(a) factors, including the nature and circumstances of the

 offense, the need to protect the public, and Mr. Taylor’s background and

 characteristics, and imposed a 24-month term, to be served consecutively to the

 108-month sentence.

        Mr. Taylor appeals the 108-month sentence.3

                                     II. DISCUSSION

        A defendant may challenge a sentence on procedural and substantive

 unreasonableness grounds. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49 (2007). “The

 procedural component concerns how the district court calculated and explained the

 sentence, whereas the substantive component concerns whether the length of the sentence

 is reasonable in light of the statutory factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).” United States v.

        3
         In his opening brief, Mr. Taylor disclaims any separate challenge to the
 revocation sentence. See Aplt. Opening Br. at 2.

                                              5
Appellate Case: 22-1392     Document: 010110986242         Date Filed: 01/19/2024     Page: 6

 Adams, 751 F.3d 1175, 1181 (10th Cir. 2014). Mr. Taylor challenges only the procedural

 reasonableness of his 108-month sentence for his violation of § 922(g)(1).4

        “[W]e review the procedural reasonableness of [a] sentence for abuse-of-

 discretion, reviewing de novo the district court’s legal conclusions regarding the

 guidelines and its factual findings for clear error.” United States v. Lawless, 979 F.3d

 849, 853 (10th Cir. 2020); see Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. “A district court abuses its

 discretion when it renders a judgment that is arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or

 manifestly unreasonable.” United States v. Huckins, 529 F.3d 1312, 1317 (10th Cir.

 2008) (quotations omitted).

        Mr. Taylor’s procedural challenge stems from the way Judge Moore

 considered his 2013 sentence. Judge Moore concluded that imposing a sentence

 greater than the total prison time imposed in the 2013 case was appropriate because

 the 2013 sentence had not deterred Mr. Taylor. Mr. Taylor contends Judge Moore

 improperly relied on a 92-month “arbitrary sentencing baseline” because the

 aggregate 2013 sentence included a 12-month revocation sentence. Aplt. Opening

 Br. at 14.

        4
         The Government contends that Mr. Taylor presents a substantive and not a
 procedural challenge to his sentence. Mr. Taylor disavows any substantive
 reasonableness argument, so even if the Government’s characterization is correct,
 Mr. Taylor has waived a substantive challenge. We assume without deciding that
 Mr. Taylor has made a procedural reasonableness argument and address it accordingly.

                                              6
Appellate Case: 22-1392      Document: 010110986242          Date Filed: 01/19/2024      Page: 7

    No Waiver of Procedural Reasonableness Challenge

        As a preliminary matter, we reject the Government’s argument that Mr. Taylor

 waived appellate review of his argument by failing to present it in district court and

 failing to argue for plain error review here.

        A defendant “must object [in district court] to any procedural flaws or receive,

 on appeal, only plain error review.” United States v. Jackson, 82 F.4th at 943, 949

 (10th Cir. 2023). The record shows Mr. Taylor sufficiently objected in district court

 to preserve this issue.

        Although Mr. Taylor did not argue in district court for the 96-month sentence

 he now contends would be reasonable, he did argue the sentencing court should either

 have used the 80-month sentence he received for his 2013 § 922(g)(1) conviction as a

 baseline or granted him credit for the prison time Judge Kane was expected to impose

 on the 2022 revocation.5 We therefore review this preserved issue for an abuse of

 discretion.

        5
          See ROA No. 22-1392, Vol. 3 at 33 (arguing Mr. Taylor’s prior sentence was for
 80 months, not 92, and “we can all safely assume Judge Kane is going to impose some
 prison time in this case”); id. at 48 (“What I’m saying is if you’re going to consider [the
 cumulative term of incarceration] for the goose, you should also consider it for the
 gander. The goose being the 2013 case, and the gander being now. We know he’s going
 to get more prison [time] from Judge Kane, and I’m not asking this Court to predict what
 that would be [but] I think it would be reasonable to predict it’s going to be at least 12
 months . . . if the Court feels like it needs to give him more time in order to accomplish
 the trick . . . then consider that he’s almost inevitably getting at least another year on top
 of whatever the Court is giving.”).

                                               7
Appellate Case: 22-1392     Document: 010110986242         Date Filed: 01/19/2024     Page: 8

    No Abuse of Discretion.

        “A sentence cannot . . . be considered reasonable if the manner in which it was

 determined was unreasonable.” United States v. Conlan, 500 F.3d 1167, 1169

 (10th Cir. 2007) (quotations omitted). Mr. Taylor contends Judge Moore’s method of

 determining his sentence was unreasonable.

        Mr. Taylor first asserts that because Judge Moore sentenced him only for a

 § 922(g) conviction, the judge should have considered only the 2013 § 922(g)

 sentence of 80 months as a baseline. But he cites no authority limiting the judge’s

 discretion in this way. Judge Moore was concerned that the aggregate 92-month

 sentence imposed in 2013 had proved ineffectual. He concluded that a greater

 sentence was required to accomplish the court’s sentencing goals, including

 protecting the public and deterrence—a point Mr. Taylor’s counsel conceded was “a

 reasonable position to take.” ROA No. 22-1392, Vol. 3 at 49.

        Although 12 months of the 2013 92-month sentence had been imposed for a

 supervised release violation rather than a § 922(g) conviction, the two parts were

 related. The “principal” violation that led to the revocation of Mr. Taylor’s

 supervised release was the same unlawful possession of a firearm underlying the

 § 922(g) violation. ROA No. 22-1442, Vol. 3 at 33. Judge Kane’s statement in 2013

 that he was making the revocation sentence consecutive because of a “breach of

 trust,” id. at 35, does not change this fact.6 Thus, in assessing whether his

        6
         Mr. Taylor argues that the Guidelines’ policy statements treat sentences for
 criminal conduct and violation of supervised release separately based on distinct factors,
                                              8
Appellate Case: 22-1392    Document: 010110986242         Date Filed: 01/19/2024    Page: 9

 incarceration for a firearms offense had deterred Mr. Taylor from committing new

 firearms offenses, Judge Moore reasonably considered the aggregate prison term

 resulting from the prior firearms offense to conclude that “the 92 months . . . rolled

 off his back like water off a duck,” ROA No. 22-1392, Vol. 3 at 49. Mr. Taylor has

 not shown an abuse of discretion.

       Alternatively, Mr. Taylor argues that having used the aggregate 2013 sentence

 as a benchmark, the district court should also have considered the effect of the

 anticipated revocation sentence from Judge Kane on Mr. Taylor’s new aggregate

 sentence. He does not contend that Judge Moore had to reduce his sentence by

 exactly 12 months or to speculate about the exact revocation sentence he would

 receive. Instead, he argues that Judge Moore erred by disregarding the future

 revocation sentence entirely. See Reply Br. at 17.

       The record shows that Judge Moore knew Judge Kane would impose an

 additional sentence for the supervised release violation but chose not to consider that

 fact in determining the length of Mr. Taylor’s § 922(g) sentence. Mr. Taylor has

 failed to convince us that choice was “arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or manifestly

 unreasonable.” Huckins, 529 F.3d at 1317.

 with the primary goal of the supervised-release sentence being to sanction the defendant’s
 breach of trust. See Aplt. Opening Br. at 16. But it does not follow that in fashioning a
 reasonable sentence, a court sentencing a defendant for a later offense may not consider
 whether an aggregate prior sentence had any deterrent effect on the defendant’s conduct.

                                             9
Appellate Case: 22-1392    Document: 010110986242        Date Filed: 01/19/2024      Page: 10

        In response to Mr. Taylor’s argument that he should have considered Judge

  Kane’s prospective revocation sentence, Judge Moore noted his “obligation . . . to

  apply [the 18 U.S.C. §] 3553 factors” in sentencing Mr. Taylor. ROA No. 22-1392,

  Vol. 3 at 49. Section 3553 requires a court to “consider . . . the need for the sentence

  imposed” to meet the statutory purposes, including affording adequate deterrence and

  protecting the public from the defendant’s further crimes. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)

  (emphasis added). Judge Moore considered these objectives by focusing on the

  § 922(g)(1) conviction and such factors as Mr. Taylor’s criminal history, without

  factoring in a sentence he might receive later for violating supervised release.

        Judge Moore could have considered the sentence Judge Kane might impose on

  the revocation count. See Dean v. United States, 581 U.S. 62, 67 (2017) (recognizing

  that § 3553 “permit[s] a court imposing a sentence on one count of conviction to

  consider sentences [to be] imposed on other counts”). But Mr. Taylor has cited no

  authority suggesting that Judge Moore was required to consider the potential

  revocation sentence, nor has he shown it was an abuse of discretion not to do so.

        In sum, Mr. Taylor’s arguments fails to establish “that the [district] court made

  a clear error of judgment or exceeded the bounds of permissible choice in the

  circumstances.” United States v. Hald, 8 F.4th 932, 949 (10th Cir. 2021) (quotations

  omitted). We therefore reject his procedural reasonableness challenge.

                                             10
Appellate Case: 22-1392   Document: 010110986242     Date Filed: 01/19/2024   Page: 11

                                III. CONCLUSION

        We affirm the challenged judgment and sentence.

                                          Entered for the Court

                                          Scott M. Matheson, Jr.
                                          Circuit Judge

                                         11