Court Opinion

ID: 9904929
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-28 15:01:49.982097+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:48.704458
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-13934    Document: 30-1     Date Filed: 11/28/2023   Page: 1 of 6

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-13934
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       DIVAD WASHINGTON,
       a.k.a. POD,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket No. 5:21-cr-00021-TKW-MJF-3
USCA11 Case: 22-13934      Document: 30-1     Date Filed: 11/28/2023     Page: 2 of 6

       2                      Opinion of the Court                 22-13934

                            ____________________

       Before WILSON, LAGOA, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Divad Washington appeals his federal sentence of 180-
       months’ imprisonment following his convictions for possessing
       with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine
       and possessing a firearm as a felon. He argues that the district court
       committed reversible error by failing to note on its Judgment and
       Containment (J&C) Order that his total sentence in the present
       case should run concurrent with any sentence imposed in a case
       pending against him in Florida state court at the time. After careful
       review, we affirm.
                               I.     Background
               When a federal grand jury indicted Washington in July 2021,
       Washington already had an outstanding state warrant in Florida.
       Washington’s warrant in Florida related to 2019 offenses for
       trafficking cocaine, money laundering, and using a two-way
       communication device to commit a felony. In January 2022, the
       Florida warrant was executed first, and the United States soon filed
       a petition for writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum.
       Throughout Washington’s federal proceedings, he remained
       primarily in state custody.
              Washington pled guilty to both federal counts against him.
       At his sentencing hearing, all parties—including his attorney and
       his probation officer—were confused about whether Washington
USCA11 Case: 22-13934     Document: 30-1      Date Filed: 11/28/2023   Page: 3 of 6

       22-13934                 Opinion of the Court                    3

       was primarily in state or federal custody. At the hearing, the
       Government raised the issue of Washington’s pending state
       charges and explained the court’s discretion about whether its
       federal sentence would run concurrent and coterminous with a
       potential state sentence. Whereas the Government believed
       Washington was “[e]ssentially” in primary state custody,
       Washington’s defense attorney was initially unsure.
               Washington’s probation officer believed Washington was in
       primary federal custody, and Washington’s attorney believed
       Washington was in federal custody based on Washington’s own
       belief that he was in federal custody. Further, Washington’s
       attorney was unable to reach Washington’s state court defense
       attorney and instead relied on Washington’s belief he would get
       time-served on his state charges. Based on these statements, the
       district court noted that it had “no particular concern with
       whether” the federal and potential state sentences “run concurrent,
       even though they’re separate and probably could justify running
       them consecutive.” The transcript shows the district court judge
       later stated that the two sentences “can run concurrent or
       consecutive, however the state court wants to do it.” The J&C
       does not include this language or state anything about concurrent
       or consecutive sentences.
                          II.      Standard of Review
              We normally review a district court's sentencing decisions,
       including whether to impose a concurrent or consecutive sentence,
       under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United
USCA11 Case: 22-13934       Document: 30-1      Date Filed: 11/28/2023      Page: 4 of 6

       4                       Opinion of the Court                   22-13934

       States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007); United States v. Gomez, 955 F.3d 1250,
       1255 (11th Cir. 2020) (per curiam). However, issues raised for the
       first time on appeal are reviewed for plain error. United States v.
       Longoria, 874 F.3d 1278, 1281 (11th Cir. 2017) (per curiam). To
       show plain error, a defendant must demonstrate: “(1) an error;
       (2) that was obvious; (3) that affected the defendant’s substantial
       rights; and (4) that seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or
       public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. Dudley,
       5 F.4th 1249, 1255 (11th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 1376
       (2022).
               An error is plain if it is “clear or obvious, rather than subject
       to reasonable dispute.” Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135
       (2009). To show that an error affected his substantial rights, a
       defendant “must ‘show a reasonable probability that, but for the
       error,’ the outcome of the proceeding would have been different.”
       Molina-Martinez v. United States, 578 U.S. 189, 194 (2016) (quoting
       United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 83 (2004)).
                                  III.    Analysis
              District courts generally have “discretion to select whether
       the sentences they impose will run concurrently or consecutively
       with respect to other sentences.” Setser v. United States, 566 U.S.
       231, 236–37 (2012); see 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a). District courts can
       impose a federal sentence consecutive to an unrelated state court
       sentence not yet imposed for pending charges. See United States v.
       Ballard, 6 F.3d 1502, 1507 (11th Cir. 1993). Multiple terms of
       imprisonment imposed at the same time will default to running
USCA11 Case: 22-13934      Document: 30-1       Date Filed: 11/28/2023     Page: 5 of 6

       22-13934                Opinion of the Court                          5

       concurrently. 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a). Multiple terms of imprisonment
       imposed at different times will default to running consecutively.
       Id. After pronouncement of a sentence by a federal court, the
       Attorney General, through the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), has the
       authority to compute and administer the defendant’s sentence. See
       18 U.S.C. § 3621(a).
              On appeal, Washington argues that it was reversible error
       for the district court to fail to include language in the J&C to reflect
       the court’s statement at sentencing that the federal and state
       sentences could be either concurrent or consecutive. Washington
       posits that without the J&C explicitly stating that the sentences
       could be concurrent, the state court lacked jurisdiction to impose a
       concurrent sentence for BOP to follow. Because Washington did
       not object to anything at the sentencing hearing, this argument is
       new on appeal, and we review it for plain error.
              We conclude that the district court did not err by refusing to
       state whether Washington’s total sentence should run
       consecutively or concurrently with a sentence that might be
       imposed in the future in his state court case. The district court was
       entitled to exercise discretion in deciding the concurrent or
       consecutive nature of the federal sentence with the anticipated
       state sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a); Setser, 566 U.S. at 236–37.
       The court was not required to set his total sentence to run
       concurrently under the circumstances present here. See 18 U.S.C.
       § 3584(a). Thus, the court did not commit an error by declining to
USCA11 Case: 22-13934     Document: 30-1     Date Filed: 11/28/2023   Page: 6 of 6

       6                     Opinion of the Court                22-13934

       include in its order that the total sentence would run concurrently
       with his anticipated state court sentence.
               The statements from the sentencing hearing do not change
       our conclusion. The transcript shows general confusion at the
       sentencing hearing about whether Washington was primarily in
       state or federal custody. Washington’s attorney repeatedly and
       incorrectly stated that Washington was in primary federal custody.
       Even if we labeled this as a court error, Washington has not
       satisfied his burden on other prongs of the plain error standard.
       The third prong requires showing that “but-for” an error, the
       outcome of a case would be different. See Molina-Martinez, 578 U.S.
       at 193. At the federal sentencing hearing, Washington’s belief that
       his state sentence would only be for time already served came up
       together with his belief that he was in federal custody. Washington
       has not demonstrated that but-for the custody confusion, the
       content of the J&C order and outcome of the proceeding would
       differ from the actual result.
             For the reasons discussed above, the district court did not
       commit plain error by not mentioning in the J&C order whether
       Washington’s federal sentence would run concurrently or
       consecutively with his pending state sentence.
             AFFIRMED.