Court Opinion

ID: 9930628
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-07 15:01:12.710233+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:19:41.726308
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-11945    Document: 24-1     Date Filed: 02/07/2024   Page: 1 of 8

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-11945
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       LADARIS LEMMON JACKSON,

                                                  Defendant- Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Middle District of Alabama
                 D.C. Docket No. 2:17-cr-00107-WKW-KFP-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-11945     Document: 24-1     Date Filed: 02/07/2024    Page: 2 of 8

       2                     Opinion of the Court                23-11945

       Before JILL PRYOR, NEWSOM, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Ladaris Lemmon Jackson appeals his 24-month sentence for
       violating the terms of his supervised release. Jackson argues that
       his 24-month sentence is substantively unreasonable because it is
       greater than necessary to achieve the sentencing purposes outlined
       in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He argues that the court relied exclusively
       on § 3553(a)(1) in deciding its sentence and did not provide
       meaningful consideration to the other 3553(a) factors. After careful
       review, we affirm.
                               I.    Background
              In 2017, Jackson was charged with being a felon in
       possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (Count
       One) and possession of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844(a)
       (Count Two). Jackson pleaded guilty to both counts. He was
       sentenced to 37 months for Count One, 12 months for Count Two,
       and 3 years of supervised release. Per the terms of his supervised
       release, he was not allowed to own, possess, or have access to a
       firearm.
              Jackson’s term of supervised release began on April 3, 2020.
       On February 8, 2023, shortly before his three-year term of
       supervised release expired, a probation officer petitioned the court
       to revoke Jackson’s supervised release and issue a warrant for his
       arrest. The officer reported that on February 5, 2023, Jackson
       “discharged a firearm multiple times into a vehicle occupied by”
USCA11 Case: 23-11945     Document: 24-1      Date Filed: 02/07/2024    Page: 3 of 8

       23-11945               Opinion of the Court                        3

       his ex-girlfriend and two others. While no one was injured,
       Alabama state officers signed a warrant for Jackson’s arrest for
       shooting or discharging a weapon into an occupied building or
       vehicle. The district court issued a warrant for Jackson’s arrest.
              At his revocation hearing, Jackson pleaded no contest to the
       charge. All three witnesses to the shooting identified Jackson as the
       man who possessed and fired the gun. Thus, the district court
       concluded there was a sufficient basis for finding Jackson guilty of
       the probation violation for discharging a firearm. The court
       determined that it was a grade A offense and that Jackson’s criminal
       history category was five. It then explained that the maximum
       term of imprisonment was not more than 24 months.
               Before the court imposed its sentence, Jackson presented
       three forms of mitigating evidence. First, his probation officer
       testified that Jackson had complied with the conditions of his
       supervised release before the incident. Second, Jackson called an
       investigator for the federal public defender’s office, who testified
       that Jackson’s partner told her that Jackson supported his children
       financially and physically, and that it was her gun that was involved
       in the initial revocation petition. Third, Jackson submitted his
       psychological report, in which an evaluator opined that he never
       received proper mental health treatment despite having six adverse
       childhood experiences and seeing a close friend and three cousins
       get killed.
            Jackson also apologized to the court. He argued that the
       Alabama shooting was an outlier from his typical behavior, and
USCA11 Case: 23-11945      Document: 24-1      Date Filed: 02/07/2024     Page: 4 of 8

       4                      Opinion of the Court                  23-11945

       that he should get time served and another year of supervised
       relief. The government argued that Jackson’s actions put peoples’
       lives in jeopardy and asked for the full 24 months’ imprisonment.
               The court sentenced Jackson to 24 months’ imprisonment.
       It stated that the shooting was a serious offense and that Jackson
       was fortunate that he was not charged with murder or capital
       murder. The court pointed out that Jackson put the people in the
       car’s lives at risk as well as innocent bystanders who could have
       been hit with inaccurate shots. The court noted that while it had
       read Jackson’s psychological evaluation and acknowledged
       Jackson’s difficult past, it found there was no excuse for firing a gun
       on a public road. Having considered the sentencing guidelines, the
       18 U.S.C § 3553(a) factors, and the parties’ arguments, the court
       then sentenced Jackson to 24 months’ imprisonment with 12
       months of supervised release. Jackson objected to the substantive
       reasonableness of the sentence and appealed.
                                II.    Discussion
              On appeal, Jackson argues that his 24-month sentence is
       substantively unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to
       achieve the sentencing purposes outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
       After careful review, we aﬃrm.
              We review the reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of
       discretion. United States v. Williams, 526 F.3d 1312, 1321–22 (11th
       Cir. 2008). The party challenging a sentence bears the burden of
       showing that the sentence is unreasonable. Id. at 1322. “Although
       we do not automatically presume a sentence within the guidelines
USCA11 Case: 23-11945     Document: 24-1      Date Filed: 02/07/2024    Page: 5 of 8

       23-11945               Opinion of the Court                        5

       range is reasonable, ‘we ordinarily . . . expect [such a sentence] to
       be reasonable.’” United States v. Hunt, 526 F.3d 739, 746 (11th Cir.
       2008) (quoting United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir.
       2005).
               On a substantive reasonableness review, we may vacate the
       sentence “only if[] we are left with the deﬁnite and ﬁrm conviction
       that the district court committed a clear error of judgment in
       weighing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors” to arrive at an
       unreasonable sentence based on the facts of the case. United States
       v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1190 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc). “A district
       court abuses its discretion when it (1) fails to aﬀord consideration
       to 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 in considering the proper
       factors.” Id. at 1189 (quotations omitted). We consider whether a
       sentence is substantively unreasonable under the totality of the
       circumstances and in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
       factors. Williams, 526 F.3d at 1322. The district court must evaluate
       all of the § 3553(a) factors, but the weight given to each factor is
       within the sound discretion of the district court. United States v.
       Ramirez-Gonzalez, 755 F.3d 1267, 1272 (11th Cir. 2014). The district
       court does not have to give all of the factors equal weight and is
       given discretion “to attach great weight to one factor over others.”
       United States v. Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d 1249, 1254 (11th Cir. 2015)
       (quotations omitted). That said, “a district court’s unjustiﬁed
       reliance on any one § 3553(a) factor may be a symptom of an
USCA11 Case: 23-11945      Document: 24-1      Date Filed: 02/07/2024     Page: 6 of 8

       6                      Opinion of the Court                  23-11945

       unreasonable sentence.” United States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179, 1191
       (11th Cir. 2008).
              The § 3553(a) factors the district court must consider
       include: “the nature and circumstances of the oﬀense and the
       history and characteristics of the defendant”; “the need for the
       sentence imposed to reﬂect the seriousness of the oﬀense, to
       promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the
       oﬀense” as well as to aﬀord speciﬁc and general deterrence; and
       “the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among
       defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of
       similar conduct.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). While the district court
       should consider and properly calculate the advisory guidelines
       range, it may give greater weight to other 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
       factors. Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d at 1259. But “[t]he district court
       may consider facts that were taken into account when formulating
       the guideline range for the sake of a variance.” United States v.
       Dougherty, 754 F.3d 1353, 1362 (11th Cir. 2014).
              While a district court must consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
       factors in determining a sentence, it need not state in its
       explanation that it has evaluated each factor individually. United
       States v. Ortiz-Delgado, 451 F.3d 752, 758 (11th Cir. 2006). “[A]n
       acknowledgment by the district court that” it has “considered the
       § 3553(a) factors” is suﬃcient. United States v. Turner, 474 F.3d 1265,
       1281 (11th Cir. 2007). Ultimately, the court must explain the
       sentence with enough detail “to satisfy the appellate court that [it]
USCA11 Case: 23-11945        Document: 24-1         Date Filed: 02/07/2024        Page: 7 of 8

       23-11945                  Opinion of the Court                               7

       has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis” for
       its decision. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007).
              The district court did not abuse its discretion because
       Jackson’s 24-month sentence is not substantively unreasonable
       considering the totality of the circumstances. While Jackson
       argues that the court considered only § 3553(a)(1), the court said
       that it considered the § 3553(a) factors as well as the parties’
       arguments when determining Jackson’s sentence.1 This is
       suﬃcient. See Ortiz-Delgado, 451 F.3d at 758; Turner, 474 F.3d at
       1281. And the court considered Jackson’s mitigating evidence—
       such as the testimony from his hearing, his psychological report,
       the fact that he supports his children, and his rough upbringing—
       but determined that it was outweighed by “the nature and
       circumstances of the oﬀense,” the need to protect the public, and
       deterrence. Further, the court properly considered and weighed
       the fact that Jackson, who was on supervised release for possessing
       a ﬁrearm, violated his supervised release by possessing and
       shooting a ﬁrearm at others.

       1 Jackson also argues that the court considered an inappropriate factor when it

       discussed unrelated incidents in which children were hit with stray bullets.
       But the court was not, as Jackson accuses, “rel[ying] heavily upon facts that
       were not in evidence” by discussing these incidents. In context, the court was
       simply using them to underscore the dangers of firing a weapon on a public
       road.
USCA11 Case: 23-11945    Document: 24-1     Date Filed: 02/07/2024   Page: 8 of 8

       8                    Opinion of the Court               23-11945

              Thus, the court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing
       Jackson to 24 months’ imprisonment with 12 months of supervised
       release.
             AFFIRMED.