Court Opinion

ID: 9392427
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-04 20:00:58.770887+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:45.878324
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-11572     Document: 29-1      Date Filed: 05/04/2023   Page: 1 of 12

                                                     [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                           ____________________

                                  No. 22-11572
                            Non-Argument Calendar
                           ____________________

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                        Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
        versus
        STEVEN WESLEY GRANDISON,

                                                     Defendant-Appellant.

                           ____________________

                  Appeals from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Alabama
                     D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cr-00071-KD-C-1
                            ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-11572     Document: 29-1     Date Filed: 05/04/2023   Page: 2 of 12

        2                     Opinion of the Court                22-11572

                            ____________________

                                  No. 22-13653
                            Non-Argument Calendar
                            ____________________

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                        Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
        versus
        STEVEN WESLEY GRANDISON,

                                                     Defendant-Appellant.

                            ____________________

                  Appeals from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Alabama
                     D.C. Docket No. 1:07-cr-00037-KD-B-1
                            ____________________

        Before WILSON, BRANCH, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
        PER CURIAM:
              In this consolidated appeal, Steven Grandison challenges his
        concurrent sentences of 36 months’ imprisonment following the
        revocation of his supervised release in two cases (Case No.
USCA11 Case: 22-11572          Document: 29-1         Date Filed: 05/04/2023          Page: 3 of 12

        22-11572                   Opinion of the Court                                  3

        1:07-cr-00037 and Case No. 1:10-cr-00071). 1 He argues that the
        above-guidelines sentence is substantively unreasonable because
        the district court failed to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
        sentencing factors and focused exclusively on Grandison’s
        recidivism risk. After review, we aﬃrm.

        1 The government argues that we should dismiss Grandison’s appeal with
        respect to the judgment in Case No. 1:07-cr-00037 because Grandison failed to
        timely file a notice of appeal in that case, and the notice of appeal that he filed
        in Case No. 1:10-cr-00071 does not evince a clear intent to also appeal the
        judgment in Case No. 1:07-cr-00037. We disagree. Even though the district
        court entered a separate judgment in both cases, we cannot ignore that it
        addressed both cases in a single revocation hearing and made no distinction
        between the cases, except to say that the sentences in each case were to run
        concurrently. And the identical judgments in both cases were entered on the
        same day. Although Grandison’s notice of appeal only listed Case No. 1:10-cr-
        00071, it also stated that he was appealing “from the Judgment entered
        revoking the Defendant’s [s]upervised release on April 26, 2022.” When
        viewed as a whole and in light of the totality of the circumstances, there is no
        genuine doubt as to the judgments being appealed, and dismissal is not
        warranted. See Becker v. Montgomery, 532 U.S. 757, 767 (2001) (“Imperfections
        in noticing an appeal should not be fatal where no genuine doubt exists about
        who is appealing, from what judgment, to which appellate court.”); United
        States v. Grant, 256 F.3d 1146, 1151 (11th Cir. 2001) (holding under nearly
        identical circumstances that a notice to appeal that referenced only one case
        number evinced an intent to appeal in both cases because it referenced the
        single judgment entered following a consolidated hearing); see also Hill v.
        Bellsouth Telecomms., Inc., 364 F.3d 1308, 1313 (11th Cir. 2004) (explaining that
        we “embrace[] ‘a policy of liberal construction of notices of appeal’ when
        (1) unnoticed claims or issues are inextricably intertwined with noticed ones
        and (2) the adverse party is not prejudiced” (quotation omitted)).
USCA11 Case: 22-11572      Document: 29-1      Date Filed: 05/04/2023     Page: 4 of 12

        4                      Opinion of the Court                 22-11572

                                  I.     Background
                In 2007, Grandison pleaded guilty to bank fraud in the
        Southern District of Alabama, and the district court sentenced him
        to 30 months’ imprisonment, to be followed by five years of
        supervised release. His supervision commenced in April 2009. In
        January 2010, the district court revoked his supervised release upon
        finding that Grandison violated its terms by (1) failing to follow his
        probation officer’s instructions not to engage in the purchase and
        resale of automobiles, (2) committing a new crime (bank fraud), (3)
        failing to attend drug treatment and counseling, and (4) failing to
        make required restitution payments. The district court sentenced
        him to 24 months’ imprisonment to be followed by 36 months’
        supervised release.
               In a separate proceeding later in 2010, Grandison pleaded
        guilty to a new count of bank fraud and was sentenced to 33
        months’ imprisonment to be followed by five years’ supervised
        release, which was set to run consecutively to the revocation
        sentence in his 2007 case.
               Thereafter, in 2015, in both cases, Grandison admitted to,
        among other violations, committing a new criminal offense in
        violation of the terms of his supervised release, and the district
        court revoked his supervised release. He was sentenced to
        concurrent terms of 24 months’ imprisonment to be followed by
        36 months’ supervised release in both cases.
              Grandison’s supervised release term commenced in March
        2017. In November 2018, Grandison’s probation officer petitioned
USCA11 Case: 22-11572        Document: 29-1       Date Filed: 05/04/2023       Page: 5 of 12

        22-11572                 Opinion of the Court                             5

        the court for revocation of Grandison’s supervised release,
        asserting that Grandison violated the conditions of his supervised
        release, which required him to (1) provide the probation officer
        with access to requested financial information, (2) not open any
        new lines of credit, (3) make timely restitution payments, and
        (4) not commit another crime. In 2022, Grandison’s probation
        officer amended the petition, alleging that Grandison also violated
        the conditions of his supervised release which prohibited him from
        leaving the judicial district without the permission of the court or
        his probation officer and required him to notify the probation
        officer of changes in his residence within a specified period of
        time. 2 Grandison denied the violations.
                At the revocation hearing, Grandison’s probation officer
        testified that, in 2018, she discovered that Grandison had opened
        two new lines of credit and purchased two vehicles without prior
        approval. At that time, he was behind significantly on his monthly
        restitution payments. Upon questioning by the probation officer,
        Grandison admitted to purchasing the vehicles, but he stated that
        “he was tricked into signing the loan papers.” When the probation
        officer visited Grandison’s home, she observed a brand new 55-inch
        television still in the box, and Grandison said his girlfriend had
        purchased it, but at that time she was unemployed. The probation
        officer also observed paperwork for a third vehicle, which

        2 Grandison absconded from supervision in 2018, and he remained at large for
        three years.
USCA11 Case: 22-11572     Document: 29-1      Date Filed: 05/04/2023    Page: 6 of 12

        6                     Opinion of the Court                22-11572

        Grandison stated was his daughter’s and that he “helped [her] with
        a car loan.”
               The probation officer instructed Grandison to report to her
        office and bring various financial records. He brought some, but
        not all, of the requested information, and he did the same thing
        again at a follow-up meeting a few days later. Grandison failed to
        show up for a reporting appointment in mid-November 2018, and
        he stopped responding to the officer’s calls.
               Meanwhile, the probation officer received phone calls from
        various individuals who stated that they had purchased vehicles
        from Grandison, but they did not receive the vehicles. Grandison’s
        employer also reported that Grandison was “scamming individuals
        who he worked with out of money.” And a check company
        reported that Grandison was cashing personal checks with
        insufficient funds.
                Additional evidence presented at the hearing established
        that, in 2018, a woman gave money to Grandison as payment for a
        car that he was supposed to procure for her at an auction, but she
        did not receive the vehicle as promised and Grandison stopped
        responding to her inquiries. Similarly, another individual sent
        Grandison money for the purchase of a vehicle, and Grandison
        gave him a vehicle for the weekend, but then took it back to have
        body work done on it. Grandison never picked up the car from the
        repair shop or paid the repair bill and the car was repossessed by a
        finance company. The body shop received multiple calls from
        multiple individuals who appeared to believe the car belonged to
USCA11 Case: 22-11572         Document: 29-1        Date Filed: 05/04/2023        Page: 7 of 12

        22-11572                  Opinion of the Court                               7

        them asking about the status of the vehicle. Furthermore, an
        elderly couple in Florida gave Grandison money for him to procure
        a tractor for them, but they never received the tractor.
               Moreover, in 2019, Grandison purchased two trucks and
        received a loaner vehicle from a dealership in Georgia, but the
        checks he used to purchase the vehicles bounced. When contacted
        about the checks, Grandison stated he would return the vehicles,
        but he did not do so—instead, the cars were later found in various
        locations after Grandison “sold” the cars to other individuals.
               Finally, in April 2021, Grandison was pulled over in Georgia.
        Grandison told the officer that his name was “Steven Watson,” and
        denied having a driver’s license. The officer was unable to verify
        Grandison’s identify with the name and birthdate he provided, and
        the officer arrested Grandison for driving without a license. Later,
        officers determined Grandison’s correct identity and discovered
        that he had multiple outstanding warrants.
               Based on the evidence presented during the revocation
        hearing, the district court found by a preponderance of the
        evidence that Grandison violated the terms of his supervised
        release by incurring new debt without prior approval, failing to pay
        restitution, committing new criminal conduct, and traveling
        outside the Southern District of Alabama without permission.3

        3 The district court found Grandison not guilty of violating the condition that
        required him to notify his probation officer of changes in his residency within
        a specified period of time.
USCA11 Case: 22-11572       Document: 29-1       Date Filed: 05/04/2023      Page: 8 of 12

        8                       Opinion of the Court                    22-11572

        Grandison’s probation officer recommended the district court
        impose concurrent terms of the statutory maximum term of 36
        months’ imprisonment with no supervision to follow.4 In support
        of the requested sentence, the government emphasized
        Grandison’s criminal history, pattern of fraud, and prior
        revocations based on similar conduct. Grandison’s counsel
        requested that the district court “consider a sentence within the
        guidelines.”
                The district court sentenced Grandison to concurrent terms
        of 36 months’ imprisonment with no supervised release. The
        district court noted that it had considered the guidelines, but found
        a guideline sentence inappropriate. The district court reasoned as
        follows:
               Well, Mr. Grandison, I’ve been doing this a long time,
               and I have never ever encountered anybody that
               committed as much fraud as you did over your
               lifetime. Your priors include at least four or ﬁve, six
               fraud cases, theft of property, at least four of those,
               lots of worthless checks, false statements.

               And this case involves I don’t know how many people
               you swindled or made false statements to. And I
               wrote a note to myself before that you are highly

        4 Grandison’s advisory guidelines range was 21 to 27 months’ imprisonment.
        He faced a statutory maximum of 36 months’ imprisonment and 12 months’
        supervised release.
USCA11 Case: 22-11572         Document: 29-1         Date Filed: 05/04/2023         Page: 9 of 12

        22-11572                   Opinion of the Court                                9

                likely of recidivism, but, because you pled guilty, I
                gave you guideline sentences each time.

                This time, I’m giving you the maximum of 36 months
                with no supervised release to follow. I feel that you
                are a danger to the community, and I don’t know
                what’s ever going to stop you or if you ever will.

        Grandison objected, arguing that “the sentence is substantively and
        figuratively unreasonable” and asked the district court to consider
        a guideline sentence. The district court overruled the objection
        without explanation. This appeal followed.
                                       II.     Discussion
               Grandison argues that the 36-month revocation sentence in
        each of his respective cases is substantively unreasonable because
        the district court failed to consider the § 3553(a) factors and relied
        exclusively on his potential for recidivism.5
               We review the “district’s court’s revocation of supervised
        release for an abuse of discretion.” United States v. Cunningham, 607
        F.3d 1264, 1266 (11th Cir. 2010). We will “vacate the sentence if,
        but only if, we ‘are left with the definite and firm conviction that

        5 The government argues that we should review Grandison’s claim for plain
        error because he failed to argue below that the district court did not consider
        the § 3553(a) factors or that it erroneously relied solely on Grandison’s risk of
        recidivism, and his general challenge to the substantive reasonableness of the
        sentence was insufficient to preserve those issues. We need not decide
        whether plain error review applies because Grandison’s claim fails even under
        the lesser abuse of discretion standard.
USCA11 Case: 22-11572     Document: 29-1      Date Filed: 05/04/2023     Page: 10 of 12

        10                     Opinion of the Court                 22-11572

        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.’”
        United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1190 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc)
        (quoting United States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179, 1191 (11th Cir. 2008)).
        The party who challenges the sentence bears the burden of
        showing that the sentence is unreasonable. United States v. Tome,
        611 F.3d 1371, 1378 (11th Cir. 2010).
               The district court may, after considering certain factors in
        § 3553(a), revoke a defendant’s supervised release if the court finds
        by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated a
        condition of his supervised release. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). The
        factors the court must consider in sentencing a defendant after a
        revocation of supervised release include: (1) the nature and
        circumstances of the offense and the defendant’s history and
        characteristics; (2) the need for the sentence to deter criminal
        conduct, protect the public from the defendant’s further crimes,
        and provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational
        training, medical care, or other correctional treatment; (3) the
        sentencing guidelines range; (4) any pertinent policy statement;
        (5) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among
        similarly situated defendants; and (6) the need to provide
        restitution to victims of the offense. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (cross-
        referencing § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B)–(D), (a)(4)–(7)). The weight
        given to any § 3553(a) factor “is a matter committed to the
        discretion of the district court.” United States v. Williams, 526 F.3d
        1312, 1322 (11th Cir. 2008).
USCA11 Case: 22-11572      Document: 29-1       Date Filed: 05/04/2023      Page: 11 of 12

        22-11572                Opinion of the Court                          11

                “If, after correctly calculating the guidelines range, a district
        court decides that a sentence outside that range is appropriate, it
        must consider the extent of the deviation and ensure that the
        justification is sufficiently compelling to support the degree of the
        variance.” Tome, 611 F.3d at 1378 (quotations omitted). “[T]he
        district court [is] free to consider any information relevant to a
        defendant’s background, character, and conduct in imposing an
        upward variance.” Id. at 1379 (quotation omitted). Although
        “[s]entences outside the guidelines are not presumed to be
        unreasonable, . . . we may take the extent of any variance into our
        calculus.” United States v. Shaw, 560 F.3d 1230, 1237 (11th Cir.
        2009). “However, we must give due deference to the district
        court’s decision that the § 3553(a) factors, [as] a whole, justify the
        extent of the variance.” Tome, 611 F.3d at 1378.
               Here, Grandison failed to show that the district court abused
        its discretion. Although the district court did not mention
        expressly the relevant § 3553(a) factors, the district court’s
        explanation when imposing the upward variance sentence
        establishes that it considered multiple § 3553(a) factors, including
        the applicable guidelines and sentences available, the nature and
        circumstances of the offense, Grandison’s history and
        characteristics, and the need for the sentence to deter criminal
        conduct and to protect the public from Grandison’s further crimes.
        See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(e). And the district court supported
        the upward variance with significant justifications, including
        Grandison’s prior criminal history and prior revocations for similar
        conduct.
USCA11 Case: 22-11572      Document: 29-1      Date Filed: 05/04/2023      Page: 12 of 12

        12                      Opinion of the Court                  22-11572

               To the extent Grandison quarrels with the weight and focus
        that the district court placed on his criminal history and recidivism,
        the weight given to any specific § 3553(a) factor is committed to
        the sound discretion of the district court. Williams, 526 F.3d at
        1322; see also United States v. Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d 1249, 1254 (11th
        Cir. 2015) (explaining that the district court “is permitted to attach
        great weight to one factor over others” (quotations omitted)).
        Given the broad sentencing discretion that district courts have and
        the totality of the circumstances in this case, we are not “left with
        the definite and firm conviction that the district court committed a
        clear error of judgment” in imposing an upward variance sentence
        of 36 months’ imprisonment. Irey, 612 F.3d at 1190. Accordingly,
        we affirm.
               AFFIRMED.