Court Opinion

ID: 9928418
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-31 19:00:58.774496+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:48:28.984875
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-10743    Document: 41-1     Date Filed: 01/31/2024   Page: 1 of 3

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-10743
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       SHARON COLLINS,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Southern District of Alabama
                   D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cr-00200-TFM-B-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-10743      Document: 41-1     Date Filed: 01/31/2024     Page: 2 of 3

       2                      Opinion of the Court                 23-10743

       Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and BRASHER and ABUDU, Cir-
       cuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Sharon Collins appeals her sentence of 60 months of impris-
       onment imposed after she pleaded guilty to 12 counts of wire fraud.
       18 U.S.C. § 1343. Collins argues that she was entitled to notice that
       she would receive a sentence above the advisory guideline range
       because the district court erroneously described its upward depar-
       ture as a variance. Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(h). Alternatively, she argues
       that if the district court varied instead of departed, the upward var-
       iance renders her sentence unreasonable. We affirm.
               The district court correctly described its sentence as a vari-
       ance, so Collins was not entitled to notice. See Irizarry v. United
       States, 553 U.S. 708, 713–14, 716 (2008). The district court stated
       that Collins’s advisory guideline sentencing range of 33 to 41
       months failed to adequately account for the seriousness of her
       crime and the fact that the victim of her extensive fraudulent
       scheme was a church that employed her as its financial secretary.
       After the district court stated that it correctly calculated Collins’s
       advisory guideline range, it determined that a sentence of 60
       months of imprisonment was appropriate based on her serious
       criminal conduct of stealing $209,000 from the church and the need
       for deterrence. Because its reasoning relied on the statutory sen-
       tencing factors, and not a guidelines departure provision, the dis-
       trict court imposed an upward variance as reflected in its written
USCA11 Case: 23-10743      Document: 41-1      Date Filed: 01/31/2024     Page: 3 of 3

       23-10743               Opinion of the Court                          3

       statement of reasons, and Collins was not entitled to notice, Fed.
       R. Crim. P. 32(h). See United States v. Hall, 965 F.3d 1281, 1295, 1297
       (11th Cir. 2020).
               The district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing
       Collins to 60 months of imprisonment. The district court varied
       upward from the advisory guideline range based on the “disturb-
       ing” nature of her conduct and the harm to the victims that went
       “beyond dollars and cents.” The district court explained that “over
       and over and over again” Collins had wronged an entity and people
       whose purpose was to serve the community. In the light of these
       circumstances, the district court reasonably determined that a sen-
       tence 19 months above the recommended range was necessary to
       address the nature and circumstances of Collins’s offense, her his-
       tory and characteristics, and the seriousness of her offense and to
       promote respect for the law, impose a just punishment, deter sim-
       ilar future crimes, and protect the public. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); see
       Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007). Collins’s sentence, which is
       well below the maximum statutory sentence of 20 years of impris-
       onment, is reasonable.
              We AFFIRM Collins’s convictions and sentence.