Court Opinion

ID: 9909936
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-14 17:01:21.733852+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:50:17.506686
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-13189     Document: 30-1      Date Filed: 12/14/2023   Page: 1 of 14

                                                     [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                           ____________________

                                  No. 22-13189
                            Non-Argument Calendar
                           ____________________

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                        Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
        versus
        MARIO ANTWAN BREWER, JR.,

                                                     Defendant-Appellant.

                           ____________________

                  Appeals from the United States District Court
                      for the Northern District of Florida
                     D.C. Docket No. 3:21-cr-00062-TKW-1
                            ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-13189     Document: 30-1     Date Filed: 12/14/2023    Page: 2 of 14

        2                     Opinion of the Court                22-13189

                            ____________________

                                  No. 22-13190
                            Non-Argument Calendar
                            ____________________

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                        Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
        versus
        MARIO ANTWAN BREWER, JR.,

                                                     Defendant-Appellant.

                            ____________________

                  Appeals from the United States District Court
                      for the Northern District of Florida
                     D.C. Docket No. 3:21-cr-00053-TKW-1
                            ____________________

        Before JORDAN, ROSENBAUM, and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
        PER CURIAM:
               A few months after Mario Antwan Brewer, Jr., pleaded
        guilty to three felon-in-possession-of-a-firearm charges, he sought
        to withdraw his guilty pleas. The district court denied Brewer’s
USCA11 Case: 22-13189      Document: 30-1      Date Filed: 12/14/2023     Page: 3 of 14

        22-13189               Opinion of the Court                         3

        motion to withdraw his guilty pleas and sentenced him to 210
        months’ imprisonment. Brewer now appeals the district court’s de-
        nial of his motion and imposition of his sentence. Because we con-
        clude that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it de-
        nied Brewer’s motion or imposed his sentence, we affirm.
                                I.     BACKGROUND
               In August 2021, the United States charged Brewer with two
        counts of possessing Smith and Wesson pistols after being con-
        victed of a felony. A month later, the government charged him
        with one count of possessing a Taurus handgun after being con-
        victed of a felony. Brewer at first pleaded not guilty but, after a
        change of counsel, decided to plead guilty to all three charges. In
        each case, he signed a statement agreeing that the government
        could prove that he possessed the pistols and knew he had been
        convicted of a felony.
               The Smith and Wesson statement recounted that Brewer
        knowingly possessed a black Smith and Wesson pistol in December
        2020. He possessed the pistol at a gas station, where a shootout be-
        tween two vehicles occurred. Brewer was in one of those vehicles.
        Brewer also knowingly possessed the black Smith and Wesson and
        a tan Smith and Wesson pistol in January 2021 at his residence. The
        Taurus statement recounted that Brewer knowingly possessed a
        teal Taurus pistol in August 2021. Both statements acknowledged
        that Brewer knew he had been convicted of a prior felony and
        never obtained clemency.
USCA11 Case: 22-13189         Document: 30-1          Date Filed: 12/14/2023         Page: 4 of 14

        4                          Opinion of the Court                        22-13189

               A magistrate judge held a single change of plea hearing.
        Brewer admitted under oath that he understood the offenses’ ele-
        ments and agreed that the government could prove them. Brewer
        said he read his plea agreements, understood them, and had no
        questions about them. The plea agreement for the Smith and Wes-
        son charges stated that “[a]s to each Count, Defendant faces ten
        years imprisonment,” among other consequences. 53 Doc. 40 at 1–
        2. 1 The plea agreement for the Taurus charge stated that “[a]s to
        Count One, Defendant faces ten years imprisonment,” listing other
        consequences as well. 62 Doc. 31 at 1–2.
               The magistrate judge informed Brewer that “[f]or both
        Counts One and Two” in the Smith and Wesson case, he was
        “looking at a maximum of ten years’ imprisonment,” clarifying that
        “each of those counts carries with them those penalties.” 62 Doc.
        62 at 15. In the Taurus case, the magistrate judge told Brewer that
        he could receive “the same penalty that I’ve gone over with you
        already, which is that you face a maximum term of ten years of
        imprisonment” and other consequences. Id. at 20. Brewer under-
        stood and had no questions about either case. He said he was satis-
        fied with his attorney.
              The magistrate judge recommended that the district court
        accept Brewer’s guilty pleas, and the district court did.

        1 “53 Doc.” numbers refer to the district court’s docket entries in case 3:21-cr-

        0053. “62 Doc.” numbers refer to the district court’s docket entries in case 3:21-
        cr-0062.
USCA11 Case: 22-13189      Document: 30-1      Date Filed: 12/14/2023      Page: 5 of 14

        22-13189               Opinion of the Court                          5

               A probation officer prepared a single draft presentence in-
        vestigation report for the two cases. The draft applied a base of-
        fense level of 33 because Brewer used or possessed a firearm in con-
        nection with another firearm offense, reasoning that his involve-
        ment in a conspiracy or solicitation to commit murder could be
        established with reasonable certainty. After knocking off three
        points for acceptance of responsibility, the draft calculated a total
        offense level of 30. It determined his criminal history category to
        be VI based on his prior convictions, some of which involved vio-
        lent crimes. The total guideline range was 168 to 210 months’ im-
        prisonment.
               Brewer objected to the draft, denying that he participated in
        a shooting and denying that he possessed firearms in connection
        with another offense. He argued that his total offense level should
        have been 25 instead. The government also responded to the draft.
        It argued that at least one point should be restored because Brewer
        no longer accepted responsibility for his involvement in the shoot-
        ing. The final presentence investigation report retained the base of-
        fense level of 33 and removed the third acceptance of responsibility
        point, calculating a total offense level of 31, a criminal history cat-
        egory of VI, and a guideline range of 188 to 235 months.
              Before sentencing, an expert evaluated Brewer. The expert
        found that Brewer had an IQ of 73, which fell in the 4th percentile
        and showed an impaired range of functioning. The expert scored
        Brewer’s reading comprehension at about a fourth-grade level,
        which fell in the 3rd percentile. The expert also determined that
USCA11 Case: 22-13189       Document: 30-1        Date Filed: 12/14/2023      Page: 6 of 14

        6                        Opinion of the Court                    22-13189

        Brewer showed average legal knowledge. The expert concluded
        that “Brewer appear[ed] competent to proceed” and “demon-
        strated sufficient rational and factual knowledge of the allegations
        and appeared to have sufficient present ability to assist counsel in
        his defense.” 62 Doc. 54-1 at 5.
               Five days before Brewer’s sentencing, he moved to replace
        his counsel, Ronald Johnson. The district court concluded that
        Johnson had not been ineffective but granted Brewer’s motion, cit-
        ing the breakdown in the relationship. The district court resched-
        uled sentencing.
               A week before Brewer’s new sentencing date, he moved to
        withdraw his guilty pleas. He claimed that Johnson had been inef-
        fective. The district court denied his motion.
               At sentencing, the district court sustained Brewer’s objec-
        tion to the presentence investigation report’s calculation of his base
        offense level. The court concluded that the government had failed
        to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Brewer had en-
        gaged in conspiracy or solicitation to commit murder. Although
        the court found that Brewer shot the gun at the gas station, it rea-
        soned that the evidence failed to show that Brewer went to the gas
        station “with the intent to kill . . . or assault . . . with that firearm.”
        62 Doc. 89 at 55. The court therefore calculated Brewer’s offense
        level as 28. But the court refused to apply any reduction to Brewer’s
        offense level for acceptance of responsibility. The district court de-
        termined that Brewer’s total offense level of 28 and criminal history
        category of VI yielded a guideline range of 140 to 175 months.
USCA11 Case: 22-13189          Document: 30-1         Date Filed: 12/14/2023          Page: 7 of 14

        22-13189                   Opinion of the Court                                  7

               The district court then considered the sentencing factors
        from 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 2 It noted that mitigating factors included
        Brewer’s rough childhood, lack of education, and “intellectual chal-
        lenges.” 62 Doc. 89 at 74. The court also noted aggravating factors,
        such as his criminal history, failure to take responsibility, rapid re-
        armament upon release, and willingness to endanger the public
        with a gun. Based on these factors, the district court decided that
        Brewer resembled an Armed Career Criminal Act offender, who
        would receive a 15-year mandatory minimum. The district court
        therefore varied upward and sentenced Brewer to 70 months on
        each count, totaling 210 months. Brewer appealed.
                             II.     STANDARDS OF REVIEW
               We review a district court’s denial of a request to withdraw
        a plea for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Brehm, 442 F.3d
        1291, 1298 (11th Cir. 2006). The denial must be “arbitrary or

        2 Under § 3553(a), a district court must impose a sentence “sufficient, but not

        greater than necessary, to comply with the [statute’s] purposes.” 18 U.S.C.
        § 3553(a). These purposes include crafting a sentence that reflects the offense’s
        seriousness; promotes respect for the law; provides just punishment; deters
        criminal conduct; protects the public from the defendant’s future criminal con-
        duct; and effectively provides the defendant with educational or vocational
        training, medical care, or other correctional treatment. Id. § 3553(a)(2). The
        court must also consider the offense’s nature and circumstances, the defend-
        ant’s history and characteristics, the kinds of sentences available, the applicable
        guideline range, the Sentencing Commission’s pertinent policy statements,
        the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities, and the need to provide
        restitution to victims. Id. § 3553(a)(1), (3)–(7).
USCA11 Case: 22-13189      Document: 30-1      Date Filed: 12/14/2023      Page: 8 of 14

        8                      Opinion of the Court                  22-13189

        unreasonable” for an abuse of discretion to exist. Id. (internal quo-
        tation marks omitted).
               We also use an abuse of discretion standard to review a sen-
        tence’s substantive reasonableness. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38,
        41 (2007). “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 fac-
        tor, or (3) commits a clear error of judgment in considering the
        proper factors.” United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1189 (11th Cir.
        2010) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted). Brewer bears
        the burden of showing the sentence is unreasonable because he is
        challenging it. United States v. Tome, 611 F.3d 1371, 1378 (11th Cir.
        2010). We apply this standard even when the district court sen-
        tences a defendant above the guideline range, as the district court
        did here. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
                                 III.    DISCUSSION
              We first address whether the district court abused its discre-
        tion when it denied Brewer’s motion to withdraw his guilty pleas.
        We then discuss whether the district court abused its discretion
        when it sentenced Brewer to 210 months in prison.
        A.     The District Court’s Denial of Brewer’s Withdrawal
               Motion Was Not an Abuse of Discretion.
              The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied
        Brewer’s motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. Brewer can with-
        draw his pleas if he shows “a fair and just reason for requesting the
        withdrawal.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(b). To determine whether
USCA11 Case: 22-13189      Document: 30-1      Date Filed: 12/14/2023     Page: 9 of 14

        22-13189               Opinion of the Court                         9

        Brewer has shown a “fair and just reason,” we consider the totality
        of his pleas’ circumstances. United States v. Buckles, 843 F.2d 469,
        471–72 (11th Cir. 1988) (internal quotation marks omitted). The
        circumstances include “(1) whether close assistance of counsel was
        available; (2) whether the plea was knowing and voluntary;
        (3) whether judicial resources would be conserved; and (4) whether
        the government would be prejudiced if the defendant were al-
        lowed to withdraw his plea.” Id. at 472 (citation omitted). We may
        also consider the timing of his request. “The longer the delay,” “the
        more substantial the reasons must be.” Id. at 473.
                When we consider the totality of the circumstances, we pre-
        sume that the statements Brewer made under oath during the plea
        colloquy are true. United States v. Medlock, 12 F.3d 185, 187 (11th
        Cir. 1994). We leave it to the district court to determine “[t]he good
        faith, credibility[,] and weight” of Brewer’s assertions in support of
        his withdrawal motion. Buckles, 843 F.2d at 472.
                Although four considerations guide our analysis, the first
        two control the outcome here. When a defendant received close
        assistance of counsel and entered his plea knowingly and voluntar-
        ily, the district court need not give considerable weight or attention
        to the remaining Buckles factors. United States v. Gonzales-Mercado,
        808 F.2d 796, 801 (11th Cir. 1987). We, too, need not consider them
        because after reviewing the first two Buckles factors and consider-
        ing the timing of Brewer’s motion, we conclude that the district
        court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the motion.
USCA11 Case: 22-13189      Document: 30-1      Date Filed: 12/14/2023      Page: 10 of 14

        10                      Opinion of the Court                  22-13189

                On the first factor, the district court did not err when it con-
        cluded that counsel provided Brewer with close and adequate as-
        sistance. During his plea colloquy, Brewer acknowledged that he
        had been able to ask Johnson questions about the pleas; Johnson
        had answered every question; he had no questions for the magis-
        trate judge; and he understood the plea agreements and their con-
        sequences. Brewer found Johnson’s representation satisfactory.
               Brewer argues now that Johnson failed to discuss a double
        jeopardy defense with him. This failure, he asserts, rendered John-
        son ineffective and meant that his assistance was neither close nor
        adequate. This argument fails, however, because the ineffective as-
        sistance must alter the judgment. See Strickland v. Washington,
        466 U.S. 668, 692 (1984); see also United States v. Pease, 240 F.3d 938,
        941 (11th Cir. 2001) (applying Strickland to guilty pleas based on
        alleged ineffective assistance of counsel). The double jeopardy ar-
        gument leaves the judgment unaltered because it lacks merit.
                Although Brewer points out that both counts in the Smith
        and Wesson case charged him “with possessing the same black
        9mm Smith and Wesson pistol on dates one month apart,” Appel-
        lant’s Br. 15, the second count included the tan Smith and Wesson
        pistol. Count One involved only Brewer’s possession of the black
        pistol at the gas station in December. Count Two involved
        Brewer’s possession of the black pistol and his possession of the tan
        pistol at his house in January. Because Brewer “possessed different
        weapons at different times or places, the government may treat
        them as separate units of prosecution and charge multiple counts”
USCA11 Case: 22-13189     Document: 30-1      Date Filed: 12/14/2023    Page: 11 of 14

        22-13189               Opinion of the Court                       11

        without violating double jeopardy principles. United States v. Jones,
        601 F.3d 1247, 1259 (11th Cir. 2010).
               On the second factor, the district court did not err when it
        determined that Brewer entered his pleas knowingly and voluntar-
        ily. The magistrate judge apprised Brewer of the rights he waived
        by pleading guilty. And after she walked through the offenses’ ele-
        ments, Brewer swore that he understood them and that the gov-
        ernment could prove them. The magistrate judge found that
        Brewer entered into the plea agreements voluntarily and of his
        own will.
                Brewer argues that his pleas were not knowing and volun-
        tary because he never understood that his cases were separate. He
        also argues that he never realized that his sentences could be im-
        posed consecutively and that he faced a total maximum of 30 years
        in prison. But the magistrate judge repeatedly mentioned that the
        two plea agreements concerned the two cases. And both the mag-
        istrate judge and the plea agreements themselves clarified that the
        penalties attached to each count separately. Although the expert
        found that Brewer has a low IQ and poor reading skills, the expert
        also found that he has average legal knowledge and showed no
        confusion or misunderstanding about the pleas. On these facts,
        Brewer knowingly and voluntarily entered into the plea agree-
        ments.
               Although not part of the four-factor test, Brewer’s timing
        bolsters our conclusion that the district court did not err. “A swift
        change of heart is itself strong indication that the plea was entered
USCA11 Case: 22-13189     Document: 30-1     Date Filed: 12/14/2023    Page: 12 of 14

        12                    Opinion of the Court                22-13189

        in haste and confusion.” Gonzales-Mercado, 808 F.2d at 801 (internal
        quotation marks omitted). But a delayed filing may indicate ulte-
        rior motives. Brewer moved to withdraw his pleas six months after
        entering them. As the district court determined, this timing sug-
        gests that Brewer experienced “a case of ‘buyer’s remorse’” after
        being “faced with the reality that a substantial prison sentence
        [was] forthcoming.” 62 Doc. 68 at 8; see also Gonzales-Mercado,
        808 F.2d at 801 (noting that timing could suggest “that the appel-
        lant withdrew his plea in anticipation of a harsher sentence than
        that recommended in his plea agreement”). Even though Brewer
        now argues that his reading level, intelligence, and poor relation-
        ship with his counsel should weaken our reliance on timing, the
        half-year delay indicates that he entered the original pleas without
        haste or confusion.
              As we noted above, we need not consider the third and
        fourth Buckles factors, judicial resource conservation and govern-
        ment prejudice, to decide this appeal. The totality of the circum-
        stances show that the district court did not abuse its discretion
        when it denied Brewer’s motion to withdraw his pleas.
        B.    The District Court’s Imposition of a 210-Month Sen-
              tence Was Not an Abuse of Discretion.
                The district court did not abuse its discretion when it sen-
        tenced Brewer to 210 months in prison. Brewer argues that the dis-
        trict court abused its discretion when it imposed the upward vari-
        ance because it gave significant weight to its finding that Brewer
        fired a gun during the gas station shootout, an improper factor. See
USCA11 Case: 22-13189      Document: 30-1      Date Filed: 12/14/2023      Page: 13 of 14

        22-13189                Opinion of the Court                         13

        Irey, 612 F.3d at 1188 (holding that a district court abuses its discre-
        tion when it “gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant
        factor”).
                Brewer’s argument fails because it was not improper for the
        district court to consider that Brewer fired the gun he illegally pos-
        sessed. That consideration goes to the firearm possession’s nature
        and circumstances and the need to protect the public, both statu-
        tory factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) which “support the sentence in
        question.” United States v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319, 1324 (11th Cir.
        2008).
                Brewer also argues that his sentence is substantively unrea-
        sonable because the district court varied upward “to the same
        guideline range which would have applied if the government had
        proven that Brewer possessed the firearm in connection with an
        aggravated assault and/or attempted murder.” Appellant’s Br. 20.
        But the district court sustained Brewer’s objections to the presen-
        tence investigation report and reduced Brewer’s base level offense
        from 33 to 28 because the government failed to prove by a prepon-
        derance of the evidence that Brewer had engaged in conspiracy or
        solicitation to commit murder.
               Rather than relying on the guideline range as calculated in
        the presentence investigation report, the district court considered
        Brewer’s current guideline range, mitigating factors, and aggravat-
        ing factors to arrive at the sentence. The district court varied up-
        ward because of Brewer’s extensive criminal history, including vi-
        olent crimes; his failure to take responsibility; and his repeated
USCA11 Case: 22-13189      Document: 30-1      Date Filed: 12/14/2023     Page: 14 of 14

        14                     Opinion of the Court                  22-13189

        rapid rearmament upon release. The district court may assign great
        weight to these factors. United States v. Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d 1249,
        1254 (11th Cir. 2015). The district court therefore committed no
        “clear error of judgment” in varying upward. Irey, 612 F.3d at 1189.
                Despite the district court’s acknowledgment that the sen-
        tence “happens to work out to be [the] midpoint of the guideline
        range that was reflected in the original [presentence investigation
        report],” 62 Doc. 89 at 80, the court varied upward because of
        Brewer’s extensive criminal history, not because it relied on con-
        duct the government failed to prove by a preponderance of the ev-
        idence. United States v. Washington, 714 F.3d 1358, 1361 (11th Cir.
        2013) (requiring that the government prove facts supporting an en-
        hancement by a preponderance of the evidence). The facts here do
        not leave us “with the 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.” United
        States v. Shaw, 560 F.3d 1230, 1238 (11th Cir. 2009) (internal quota-
        tion marks omitted).
                                 IV.    CONCLUSION
               The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied
        Brewer’s withdrawal motion or when it imposed Brewer’s sen-
        tence. We therefore affirm.
               AFFIRMED.