Court Opinion

ID: 9393080
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-09 14:00:51.292899+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:50.777876
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-13306    Document: 23-1     Date Filed: 05/09/2023   Page: 1 of 6

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-13306
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       NATHAN JARON TIMOTHY JOHNSON,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cr-00017-AW-GRJ-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-13306       Document: 23-1      Date Filed: 05/09/2023      Page: 2 of 6

       2                       Opinion of the Court                   22-13306

       Before WILSON, BRANCH, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Nathan Jaron Timothy Johnson appeals his sentence of 96-
       months’ imprisonment for possession of a firearm by a convicted
       felon. He argues that the district court procedurally erred in sen-
       tencing him to an upward variance based on what he alleges are
       two clearly erroneous findings: (1) that he undermined his ac-
       ceptance of responsibility by stating that his possession of a firearm
       was a “misunderstanding,” and (2) that his criminal history in-
       cluded a “serious” head injury inflicted on a police officer. After
       careful review of the record, we AFFIRM. 1
                                          I.
               We review the reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of dis-
       cretion, and a sentence must be both procedurally and substan-
       tively reasonable to be aﬃrmed. United States v. Green, 981 F.3d 945,
       953 (11th Cir. 2020). A district court procedurally errs if, among
       other things, its sentence is based on clearly erroneous facts. Id.
       But a fact is only clearly erroneous if we are left with “a deﬁnite
       and ﬁrm conviction a mistake has been made.” Id. (quoting United
       States v. Dimitrovski, 782 F.3d 622, 628 (11th Cir. 2015).

       1 Johnson’s pending motion to voluntarily dismiss his appeal is DENIED as
       moot.
USCA11 Case: 22-13306      Document: 23-1     Date Filed: 05/09/2023     Page: 3 of 6

       22-13306               Opinion of the Court                         3

                                        II.
              In August 2020, Johnson was traveling in a car driven by a
       person identiﬁed as S.G., which the police stopped for routine traf-
       ﬁc violations. During the traﬃc stop the police became suspicious
       of the occupants and called a narcotics K-9 to the scene. The dog
       signaled the presence of drugs in the car, and the police searched
       the vehicle. During the search of the car, the police discovered il-
       legal drugs, Florida unemployment beneﬁt cards in other people’s
       names (i.e., not Johnson’s or S.G.’s), as well as a .45 caliber pistol
       and .45 caliber ammunition. While the search was ongoing, John-
       son and S.G. were detained in the police cruiser, and the cruiser’s
       on-board equipment recorded the two discussing what the police
       would ﬁnd in the car. Johnson stated he would claim responsibility
       for the gun, instructed S.G. to claim she had no knowledge of the
       gun and asked her to bail him out as soon as possible. Johnson was
       then arrested on state charges before being re-charged in federal
       court for a felon in possession of ﬁrearm or ammunition in viola-
       tion of 18 U.S.C. § 924(g)(1) and § 924(e).
              Regarding Johnson’s previous convictions, he was convicted
       in 2011 of aggravated assault on a law enforcement oﬃcer. In that
       case, Johnson was approached by oﬃcers after falling asleep in a
       McDonald’s drive-thru. Johnson refused to open his car, and in-
       stead put the car into reverse and struck a police oﬃcer. The oﬃcer
       suﬀered an “injury to his head.” In another incident in 2016, John-
       son was convicted of domestic battery after striking his girlfriend
       on her left eye and face. Johnson was also previously convicted of
       drug charges in state court.
USCA11 Case: 22-13306     Document: 23-1      Date Filed: 05/09/2023    Page: 4 of 6

       4                      Opinion of the Court                22-13306

               Because Johnson had three prior qualifying felonies, Johnson
       was an Armed Career Criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), and sub-
       ject to that statute’s sentencing enhancements. Johnson pled guilty
       pursuant to an agreement that stipulated the government would
       not seek this treatment, and instead Johnson would be subject to
       the 10-year statutory maximum for violations of § 924(g). In calcu-
       lating his guidelines range, Johnson received 2 level credits for ac-
       ceptance of responsibility and 1 level credit for timely acceptance
       of responsibility. Johnson’s base oﬀense level was 24, so the calcu-
       lated oﬀense level was 21. Given his prior convictions, his criminal
       history category was IV. The calculated guidelines sentencing
       range in this case was thus 51 to 71 months’ imprisonment.
              Johnson’s attorneys argued for a guidelines sentence. In his
       statement to the court, Johnson apologized for his actions and
       stated: “I apologize for the misunderstanding. I did not know the
       ﬁrearm was in the car until it was too far on the interstate to turn
       around.” The government noted that Johnson’s characterization
       of this incident as a “misunderstanding” was inconsistent with the
       recorded conversation between Johnson and S.G., which showed
       that he knew the gun was in the car and was planning with S.G.
       how to manage the situation if the police discovered it. The gov-
       ernment argued this tended to undercut Johnson’s acceptance of
       responsibility, and showed he was being untruthful to the court.
                                       III.
              In ﬁnding the appropriate sentence, the district court consid-
       ered the parties’ arguments, Johnson’s statement, and discussed the
USCA11 Case: 22-13306     Document: 23-1      Date Filed: 05/09/2023    Page: 5 of 6

       22-13306               Opinion of the Court                        5

       § 3553 factors. The court discussed its view that the guidelines
       were inadequate in this case to address Johnson’s conduct. The
       court found Johnson’s criminal history particularly relevant:
       “[M]ost prominently this assault on the law enforcement oﬃcer.
       Serious head injury.” D.E. 64 at 20:6–8 (emphasis added). The court
       also found Johnson’s conviction for domestic violence to be signif-
       icant. As to the acceptance of responsibility, the district court
       “d[idn’t] see a lot of remorse here.” Id. at 21:6–7. But noted, “I’m
       not taking away that consideration.” Id. at 21:7–8. The district
       court ultimately imposed an upward variance from the guidelines
       range, and sentenced Johnson to a 96-month custodial sentence fol-
       lowed by three years of supervised release.
              The district court’s sentence was not based on clearly erro-
       neous facts, and the court did not procedurally err. First, the court
       accurately noted that Johnson was convicted of assault on a law
       enforcement oﬃcer and that the oﬃcer suﬀered a head injury.
       While the district court characterized the oﬃcer’s injuries as “seri-
       ous,” Johnson has not shown that characterization is clearly erro-
       neous given the facts. The facts of that incident show Johnson
       struck one oﬃcer with his car and caused a “head injury,” before
       striking another oﬃcer with his car as he was ﬂeeing the scene. We
       decline to parse the district court’s words in order to create error
       here. Further, our review of the transcript shows us that the
       court’s consideration of this incident was based on the overall seri-
       ousness of the conduct, and not the precise wording of the oﬃcer’s
       medical diagnosis.
USCA11 Case: 22-13306     Document: 23-1      Date Filed: 05/09/2023    Page: 6 of 6

       6                      Opinion of the Court                22-13306

              Next, the court did not abuse its discretion in considering
       Johnson’s characterization that this case was based on a “misunder-
       standing.” Johnson in fact called his possession of the gun a “mis-
       understanding.” D.E. 64 at 12:10–11. Even so, the district court
       explicitly noted that it was not taking away Johnson’s credit for ac-
       ceptance of responsibility. Id. at 21:7–8. The court provided a thor-
       ough explanation of Johnson’s criminal history, the conduct in this
       case, and the court’s view that the guidelines were inadequate to
       address Johnson’s crime. It remarked on Johnson’s statement at the
       end to note that it was not suﬃcient to overcome those other ag-
       gravating factors warranting an upward variance. On these facts,
       the district court did not abuse its discretion.
              The district court did not procedurally err in sentencing
       Johnson, and he does not challenge the substantive reasonableness
       of his sentence on appeal. Accordingly, we AFFIRM.
             AFFIRMED.