Court Opinion

ID: 9919193
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-17 18:01:09.209626+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:05:52.707672
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-10948    Document: 21-1      Date Filed: 01/17/2024   Page: 1 of 12

                                                    [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                           ____________________

                                 No. 23-10948
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                           ____________________

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                       Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
        versus
        SAMMIE EUBANKS,

                                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                           ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Georgia
                  D.C. Docket No. 7:21-cr-00049-WLS-TQL-1
                           ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-10948      Document: 21-1      Date Filed: 01/17/2024     Page: 2 of 12

        2                      Opinion of the Court                 23-10948

        Before NEWSOM, BRASHER, and HULL, Circuit Judges.
        PER CURIAM:
               After pleading guilty, Sammie Eubanks appeals his 57-
        month sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in
        violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). At the time of his
        § 922(g) firearm offense in 2019, Eubanks was on state probation.
        The state court revoked Eubanks’ probation and imposed a four-
        year state sentence, which he was still serving at the time of his
        federal sentencing in 2023.
               At his federal sentencing, the district court imposed a 57-
        month sentence, within the advisory guidelines range of 51 to 63
        months. The district court ordered that the 57-month sentence run
        concurrent to the undischarged portion of the state sentence
        (which had approximately six months left). On appeal, Eubanks
        argues his 57-month sentence is substantively unreasonable
        because the district court improperly weighed the sentencing
        factors, focused primarily on his criminal history, and failed to give
        adequate consideration to the more than three years he spent in
        custody before his federal sentencing, either in state custody or in
        federal pretrial detention. After review, we affirm Eubanks’
        sentence.
USCA11 Case: 23-10948     Document: 21-1     Date Filed: 01/17/2024    Page: 3 of 12

        23-10948              Opinion of the Court                       3

                           I. BACKGROUND FACTS
        A.    2019 Offense Conduct and State Probation Revocation
                In August 2019, police officers responded to reports of a
        domestic dispute at a residence in Valdosta, Georgia. During their
        investigation, officers encountered Eubanks, who matched the
        reported description of the man involved in the domestic dispute.
        Initially, Eubanks gave officers a fake name. Eubanks later
        admitted to the officers that he and his girlfriend had a verbal
        dispute.
               As the officers questioned Eubanks, his girlfriend
        approached, and Eubanks began to back away. To prevent
        Eubanks from fleeing, the officers grabbed him and pulled him to
        the ground. While the officers struggled to place Eubanks in
        handcuffs, Eubanks threw a loaded firearm from his body to the
        ground. After restraining Eubanks, officers found bullets for the
        firearm in the backpack Eubanks was wearing.
               At the time, Eubanks was a convicted felon. Specifically, in
        2012, Eubanks pled guilty in Georgia state court to robbery by
        intimidation and aggravated assault. Eubanks was still on
        probation for these prior state convictions when in August 2019,
        the officers discovered the firearm and ammunition in his
        possession. As a result, in January 2020, Eubanks’ state probation
        was revoked, and later he was ordered to serve four years in state
        prison.
USCA11 Case: 23-10948     Document: 21-1      Date Filed: 01/17/2024    Page: 4 of 12

        4                     Opinion of the Court                23-10948

        B.    2022 Federal Charge and Guilty Plea
               Meanwhile, agents with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
        Firearms, and Explosives (“ATF”) examined the firearm that was
        found in Eubanks’ possession in August 2019. The ATF agents
        determined that the firearm was manufactured in California and
        therefore had traveled in interstate commerce to reach Georgia.
              On October 14, 2021, a federal indictment was filed charging
        Eubanks with the current § 922(g) firearm offense. A federal arrest
        warrant was issued on October 14, 2021.
                On June 7, 2022, Eubanks was arrested on the federal
        warrant at Wilcox State Prison. Pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus
        ad prosequendum, Eubanks was moved to federal custody. At his
        initial appearance on June 9, Eubanks consented to pretrial
        detention in his federal case in light of the fact that he was still
        serving a state sentence anyway. Accordingly, the district court
        ordered Eubanks to be detained in federal custody pending trial.
               In September 2022, Eubanks pled guilty as charged in the
        federal indictment without a plea agreement.
        C.    Presentence Investigation Report
               Eubanks’ presentence investigation report (“PSI”) calculated
        a total offense level of 17 and a criminal history category of VI.
        Eubanks’ criminal history category was based on eleven criminal
        history points for prior criminal convictions, including possession
        of marijuana, serious injury by vehicle, battery-family violence,
USCA11 Case: 23-10948      Document: 21-1     Date Filed: 01/17/2024     Page: 5 of 12

        23-10948               Opinion of the Court                        5

        and criminal trespass in addition to the 2012 robbery by
        intimidation and aggravated assault convictions.
               Pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(d), the PSI added two more
        criminal history points because Eubanks committed the current
        § 922(g) firearm offense while on probation for the 2012 Georgia
        convictions. The resulting advisory guidelines range was 51 to 63
        months’ imprisonment.
               Eubanks did not object to the PSI’s facts or guidelines
        calculations.
        D.    2023 Sentencing
              At Eubanks’ March 2, 2023 sentencing, the district court
        confirmed that Eubanks had no objection to the PSI. The district
        court determined that the advisory guidelines range was 51 to 63
        months, as calculated by the PSI.
                The government requested a sentence at the top of the
        advisory guidelines range, citing Eubanks’ criminal history, which
        included convictions for violent crimes and prior violations of state
        probation, and Eubanks’ provision of a fake name to officers before
        the firearm and ammunition were discovered.
               During allocution, Eubanks accepted full responsibility for
        his actions and asked the court for compassion, stating that he was
        “not the same person” he was in 2019, when he was first arrested
        for violating his state probation.
              Eubanks asked for a 40-month sentence, a variance below
        the guidelines range. In mitigation, Eubanks stressed that: (1) his
USCA11 Case: 23-10948      Document: 21-1      Date Filed: 01/17/2024      Page: 6 of 12

        6                      Opinion of the Court                  23-10948

        verbal dispute with his girlfriend was non-violent and did not
        involve the firearm; (2) he had a difficult upbringing and lost his
        birth parents to incarceration at an early age; (3) the majority of his
        past criminal conduct and probation violations occurred when he
        was 18 or 19 years old; (4) while previously incarcerated, he
        obtained his GED; (5) he had an eleven-year-old daughter he
        wanted to build a relationship with upon his release; and (6) during
        his almost four years in state custody since his 2019 arrest, Eubanks
        had “done a lot of self-reflection,” had matured, and had not
        smoked marijuana or taken any other drugs.
               At his March 2, 2023 sentencing, Eubanks also pointed out
        that he was still serving his state sentence, which had
        approximately six months remaining. Eubanks asked the district
        court to run his federal sentence concurrently so that he could go
        “straight into federal custody where he’ll be able to take advantage
        of whatever programs the [Federal] Bureau of Prisons has . . . that
        will help him when he gets out on supervised release.” Eubanks
        also asked the district court to consider the fact that he had “been
        in custody for the past three years and seven months” and that,
        although his offense occurred in August 2019, he was not brought
        to federal court until June 2022.
              After considering the PSI, the advisory guidelines range, and
        the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, the district court
        imposed a 57-month sentence. The district court explained that it
        was “struck” by the fact that, while most of Eubanks’ prior criminal
        conduct took place earlier in his life, he was “only 29 now” and was
USCA11 Case: 23-10948      Document: 21-1     Date Filed: 01/17/2024     Page: 7 of 12

        23-10948               Opinion of the Court                        7

        at a criminal history category VI, the highest category. The district
        court also stressed that some of Eubanks’ prior offenses were
        “pretty serious and resulted in harm,” including a vehicular offense
        in which the struck pedestrian lost the use of his legs. The court
        highlighted Eubanks’ state probation violations, including one for
        failing to comply with compulsory anger management treatment
        and stated that “looking across [Eubanks’] cases anger was clearly
        a contributory factor to some of [his] conduct.”
                The district court expressed concern that Eubanks’ current
        oﬀense stemmed from a domestic dispute, noting that domestic
        disturbances can often “turn into something . . . much bigger or
        worse.” The court acknowledged, however, that Eubanks did not
        use the ﬁrearm during his dispute with his girlfriend and that
        Eubanks had “admitted [he] had no business with a ﬁrearm.” The
        district court stated that although a sentence at the top of the
        advisory guidelines range could easily be justiﬁed, a “midlevel
        sentence” was appropriate given Eubanks’ forthrightness and
        acceptance of responsibility.
               As for Eubanks’ request to run his federal sentence
        concurrent to the state sentence he was still serving, the district
        court recognized that Eubanks had been in state custody since
        2019. The court stated that Eubanks should be punished for his
        federal crime “independent of and not necessarily overlapping of
        the other conduct for which you’ve been in custody.” The district
        court ordered Eubanks’ 57-month sentence to run “concurrent as
        of the entry of [the federal] judgment.”
USCA11 Case: 23-10948         Document: 21-1        Date Filed: 01/17/2024        Page: 8 of 12

        8                         Opinion of the Court                      23-10948

                Further, the district court clariﬁed that the federal sentence
        was “not intended to relate back to the beginning of [Eubanks’]
        state sentence,” but instead would “overlap that remaining part of
        [his] sentence that [he] might have in state custody.” The district
        court opined that “in view of that [state] sentence expected to be
        ended this year . . . there’s adequate remaining sentence under the
        federal sentence that takes into account adequate[] punishment for
        the federal oﬀense.” Eubanks objected to the substantive
        reasonableness of his sentence.
               On March 6, 2023, the district court entered the judgment
        ordering Eubanks’ 57-month sentence “to run concurrent to the
        undischarged terms of imprisonment” imposed by the Georgia
        court in his 2012 criminal case for his 2019 violation of probation,
        “beginning from the entry of this [federal] judgement [sic].”
                                    II. DISCUSSION
        A.     Substantive Reasonableness
                “We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for
        abuse of discretion, considering the totality of the circumstances.”
        United States v. Oudomsine, 57 F.4th 1262, 1266 (11th Cir. 2023). As
        the party challenging the sentence, Eubanks bears the burden of
        establishing that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light
        of the record and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Id.; United States
        v. Williams, 526 F.3d 1312, 1322 (11th Cir. 2008). 1

        1 The § 3553(a) sentencing factors include: (1) the nature and circumstances of

        the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need
USCA11 Case: 23-10948         Document: 21-1        Date Filed: 01/17/2024        Page: 9 of 12

        23-10948                  Opinion of the Court                               9

                A district court abuses its discretion and imposes a
        substantively unreasonable sentence when it (1) fails to consider
        relevant factors that were due significant weight, (2) gives
        significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or
        (3) commits a clear error of judgment by balancing the proper
        factors unreasonably. United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1189 (11th
        Cir. 2010) (en banc). Our review of the substantive reasonableness
        of a sentence involves “examining the totality of the
        circumstances.” United States v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319, 1324 (11th
        Cir. 2008). We will only vacate a sentence as unreasonable if we
        are left with a “definite and firm conviction that the district court
        committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the § 3553(a)
        factors by arriving at a sentence that lies outside the range of
        reasonable sentences dictated by the facts of the case.” Irey, 612
        F.3d at 1190 (quotation marks omitted).
                District courts have “discretion to decide how much weight
        to give each § 3553(a) factor.” Williams, 526 F.3d at 1323. And
        while the district court is required to consider all § 3553(a) factors,
        it is permitted to attach “great weight” to one factor over others.

        for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for
        the law, and provide just punishment; (3) the need for deterrence; (4) the need
        to protect the public; (5) the need to provide the defendant with educational
        or vocational training or medical care; (6) the kinds of sentences available;
        (7) the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range; (8) pertinent policy statements
        of the Sentencing Commission; (9) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence
        disparities; and (10) the need to provide restitution to the victims. 18 U.S.C.
        § 3553(a).
USCA11 Case: 23-10948      Document: 21-1      Date Filed: 01/17/2024     Page: 10 of 12

        10                     Opinion of the Court                  23-10948

        United States v. Overstreet, 713 F.3d 627, 638 (11th Cir. 2013)
        (quotation marks omitted). “Placing substantial weight on a
        defendant’s criminal record is entirely consistent with § 3553(a)
        because five of the factors it requires a court to consider are related
        to criminal history.” United States v. Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d 1249,
        1263 (11th Cir. 2015). We ordinarily expect a sentence within the
        guideline range to be reasonable. United States v. Foster, 878 F.3d
        1297, 1309 (11th Cir. 2018).
        B.     Eubanks’ 57-Month Sentence
               On appeal, Eubanks argues his 57-month sentence is
        substantively unreasonable because the district court did not
        properly consider or give suﬃcient weight to the more than three
        years Eubanks was in state custody “for the same federal oﬀense
        conduct” or to the nine-month period Eubanks was in federal
        pretrial detention—between June 7, 2022, when he was moved
        from state custody to federal custody, and March 2, 2023, when he
        was sentenced. Instead, Eubanks contends, the district court
        “placed primary focus on [his] criminal history.”
               Eubanks has not shown that his 57-month sentence is
        substantively unreasonable. During Eubanks’ sentencing hearing,
        the district court stated that it had considered the § 3553(a) factors
        and the advisory guidelines range. The district court speciﬁcally
        noted Eubanks’ signiﬁcant criminal history that was amassed by
        the age of 29 and involved serious crimes, some of which had
        harmed others.         The district court also listened to and
        acknowledged Eubanks’ arguments in mitigation, placing
USCA11 Case: 23-10948     Document: 21-1     Date Filed: 01/17/2024    Page: 11 of 12

        23-10948              Opinion of the Court                       11

        particular emphasis on the fact that Eubanks had not used the
        ﬁrearm during his dispute with his girlfriend and readily admitted
        he should not have possessed the ﬁrearm. Indeed, the district court
        cited Eubanks’ forthright acceptance of responsibility for its
        decision to impose a sentence in the middle of the advisory
        guidelines range rather than the top. And the fact that Eubanks’
        sentence falls within the advisory guidelines range is another sign
        of its reasonableness. See Foster, 878 F.3d at 1309.
               The district court also explicitly considered Eubanks’
        request for a concurrent sentence to account for his roughly four
        years in state custody, which included his nine months in federal
        pretrial detention awaiting federal sentencing. Thus, the record
        belies Eubanks’ claim that the district court “failed to properly
        weigh” this factor. Eubanks argues the district court placed too
        much weight on his criminal history, but the district court was
        within its discretion to do so. See Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d at 1263;
        Overstreet, 713 F.3d at 638.
               Further, the district court was within its discretion to run
        Eubanks’ federal sentence concurrent with only the undischarged
        portion of his state sentence (which had approximately six months
        left) and to begin his federal sentence from the entry of the
        judgment of conviction on March 6, 2023. See 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a)
        (providing terms may run concurrently or consecutively to other
        undischarged terms to which the defendant is already subject);
        U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(d) (providing that sentences may “run
        concurrently, partially concurrently, or consecutively to the prior
USCA11 Case: 23-10948         Document: 21-1         Date Filed: 01/17/2024          Page: 12 of 12

        12                         Opinion of the Court                         23-10948

        undischarged term of imprisonment to achieve a reasonable
        punishment for the instant oﬀense”).
               In fact, the district court explained its decision to run
        Eubanks’ 57-month sentence “partially concurrent” with his state
        sentence and “as of the entry of the judgment,” stating that it was
        necessary to provide independent punishment for Eubanks’ federal
        ﬁrearm oﬀense, which is separate conduct from his state probation
        violation. 2 The district court’s decision to impose the 57-month
        sentence concurrent with only the undischarged portion of his
        state sentence and as of the entry of the federal judgment on
        March 6, 2023 was not an abuse of discretion.
                AFFIRMED.

        2 Eubanks’ appeal brief states in passing that the district court “declined to give

        [him] credit for the months he sat in federal custody” and complains “that the
        Bureau of Prisons will not give credit” for this time. However, Eubanks’ brief
        does not raise any procedural error as to the district court’s imposition of his
        sentence or argue that the district court erred by failing to give him “credit”
        for his time in federal pretrial detention. We note, in any event, that the
        Bureau of Prisons, not the sentencing court, calculates credit for time in
        pretrial detention that has not been credited against another sentence. See
        United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 334-35 (1992) (holding 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b)
        does not authorize the district court to compute the amount of credit at
        sentencing).