Court Opinion

ID: 9367107
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-30 22:01:24.645232+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:57.282721
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-10694    Document: 25-1     Date Filed: 01/30/2023   Page: 1 of 6

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-10694
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiff-Appellee,
       versus
       JEREMIAH BUTLER-JACKSON,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Middle District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket No. 8:20-cr-00008-WFJ-CPT-1
                           ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-10694     Document: 25-1     Date Filed: 01/30/2023    Page: 2 of 6

       2                      Opinion of the Court               22-10694

       Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Jeremiah Butler-Jackson appeals the substantive reasonable-
       ness of his fifty-month prison sentence, an upward variance from
       the guideline range of twenty-seven to thirty-three months, for
       possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon. We
       affirm.
           FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

              Butler-Jackson pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm and
       ammunition by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. sec-
       tions 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). The district court originally sen-
       tenced Butler-Jackson to fifty months’ imprisonment—an upward
       variance from the sentencing guideline range of thirty to thirty-
       seven months based on a criminal history category of VI.
              On appeal, we concluded that the district court plainly erred
       by calculating criminal history points for four of Butler-Jackson’s
       juvenile convictions for which adjudication was withheld. See
       United States v. Butler-Jackson, No. 20-14843, 2022 WL 41728, at
       *2 (11th Cir. Jan. 5, 2022) (unpublished). Accordingly, we vacated
       his sentence and remanded for the district court to correctly calcu-
       late his guideline range and resentence him considering the cor-
       rected range. Id. at *3.
              On remand, probation recalculated Butler-Jackson’s guide-
       line range, which turned out to be twenty-seven to thirty-three
USCA11 Case: 22-10694      Document: 25-1     Date Filed: 01/30/2023     Page: 3 of 6

       22-10694               Opinion of the Court                         3

       months based on a criminal history category of V. At the resen-
       tencing hearing, the district court adopted the amended presen-
       tence investigation report, and neither party objected to the recal-
       culated range.
              Butler-Jackson acknowledged his escalating criminal history
       but noted that he was a victim of domestic abuse by his mother,
       lacked paternal support or a father figure, grew up in a disadvan-
       taged socioeconomic environment, and suffered from intellectual
       disability (a low IQ), substance abuse, and mental health problems.
       The district court observed that this was Butler-Jackson’s third fire-
       arm felony, he committed it while out on bond for a previous rob-
       bery (which he committed about two months after a previous fire-
       arm felony), and he possessed a semiautomatic pistol. The district
       court also noted that Butler-Jackson had a criminal history category
       of V by age nineteen, including three firearm charges and one
       shooting, as well as numerous probation violations.
               The district court sentenced Butler-Jackson to fifty months’
       imprisonment. In explaining the upward variance, the district
       court cited the need to promote respect for the law, provide ade-
       quate deterrence, and protect the public. The district court re-
       capped Butler-Jackson’s significant criminal history at a very young
       age, which appeared to be escalating—including the prior robbery
       while out on bond, his firearm possession in this case while out on
       bond for the robbery, the three firearm felonies, the shooting, mul-
       tiple burglaries, numerous violations of probation, and an apparent
       inability to comply with any noncustodial sentence. Butler-Jackson
USCA11 Case: 22-10694      Document: 25-1       Date Filed: 01/30/2023      Page: 4 of 6

       4                       Opinion of the Court                   22-10694

       objected to the upward variance and to the substantive reasonable-
       ness of the sentence, arguing that the mitigating evidence war-
       ranted relief and that the upward variance wasn’t supported by the
       record.
                            STANDARD OF REVIEW

              When reviewing for substantive reasonableness, we con-
       sider the totality of the circumstances under a deferential
       abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
       (2007). The party challenging the sentence bears the burden of es-
       tablishing that it’s unreasonable based on the facts of the case and
       the section 3553(a) factors. United States v. Tome, 611 F.3d 1371,
       1378 (11th Cir. 2010).
                                   DISCUSSION

              Butler-Jackson argues that the district court abused its dis-
       cretion by imposing the same fifty-month sentence as it imposed
       when it erroneously calculated his criminal history category. He
       contends that the district court should’ve weighed the mitigating
       factors of his difficult upbringing, low IQ, and mental health and
       substance abuse problems more heavily than the aggravating fac-
       tors that prompted an upward variance.
              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
USCA11 Case: 22-10694     Document: 25-1      Date Filed: 01/30/2023    Page: 5 of 6

       22-10694               Opinion of the Court                        5

       factors. United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1189 (11th Cir. 2010)
       (en banc). The proper factors are set out in section 3553(a) and in-
       clude the nature and circumstances of the offense; the history and
       characteristics of the defendant; the seriousness of the crime; the
       need to promote respect for the law, provide just punishment and
       adequate deterrence, and protect the public from further crimes of
       the defendant; and the guideline range. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
               We’ve “underscored” that we must give “due deference” to
       the district court to consider and weigh the proper sentencing fac-
       tors. United States v. Shabazz, 887 F.3d 1204, 1224 (11th Cir. 2018)
       (quotation omitted). Along with the section 3553(a) factors, the
       district court should consider the particularized facts of the case
       and the guideline range. United States v. Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d
       1249, 1259–60 (11th Cir. 2015). But the district court has discretion
       to give heavier weight to any of the section 3553(a) factors (or com-
       bination of factors) than to the guideline range. Id. at 1259.
               The district court also has wide discretion to decide whether
       the section 3553(a) factors justify a variance. United States v. Ro-
       driguez, 628 F.3d 1258, 1264 (11th Cir. 2010), abrogated on other
       grounds by Van Buren v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 1648 (2021). We
       don’t presume that a sentence outside the guideline range is unrea-
       sonable, and we give deference to the district court’s decision that
       the section 3553(a) factors support its chosen sentence. Irey, 612
       F.3d at 1187. The district court’s justification for a variance must
       be “sufficiently compelling to support the degree of the variance.”
       Id. at 1186–87 (quotation omitted). A sentence that’s well below
USCA11 Case: 22-10694      Document: 25-1     Date Filed: 01/30/2023     Page: 6 of 6

       6                      Opinion of the Court                 22-10694

       the statutory maximum for the crime is an indicator of its reasona-
       bleness. United States v. Dougherty, 754 F.3d 1353, 1364 (11th Cir.
       2014).
              The district court didn’t abuse its discretion in imposing the
       same sentence on remand despite the lowering of Butler-Jackson’s
       criminal history category from VI to V. The district court carefully
       laid out its reasoning in light of the section 3553(a) factors and the
       aggravating factors of Butler-Jackson’s serious criminal history at a
       young age. The district court was within its wide discretion to give
       greater weight to Butler-Jackson’s criminal history than to his mit-
       igating circumstances and determine that an upward variance was
       warranted. See Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d at 1263 (“Under substan-
       tive reasonableness review, we have repeatedly affirmed sentences
       that included major upward variances from the guidelines for de-
       fendants with significant criminal histories that the sentencing
       courts weighed heavily.”). And the sentence remains well below
       the statutory maximum term of 120 months.
              AFFIRMED.