Court Opinion

ID: 9962971
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-24 14:00:40.666187+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:59.492854
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-11505    Document: 21-1      Date Filed: 04/24/2024   Page: 1 of 11

                                                    [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                           ____________________

                                 No. 23-11505
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                           ____________________

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                       Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
        versus
        BERNARD SHAW,
        a.k.a. BERNARD LAQUAI SHAW,
        a.k.a. BERNARD L SHAW,

                                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                           ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Georgia
USCA11 Case: 23-11505     Document: 21-1     Date Filed: 04/24/2024    Page: 2 of 11

        2                     Opinion of the Court                23-11505

                   D.C. Docket No. 4:22-cr-00018-CDL-MSH-2
                           ____________________

        Before LUCK, ANDERSON, and HULL, Circuit Judges.
        PER CURIAM:
               After pleading guilty, defendant Bernard Shaw appeals his
        60-month total sentence for two counts of possession of a ﬁrearm
        by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and
        924(a)(2). At sentencing, the district court imposed a 14-month
        upward variance from the top of the advisory guidelines range of
        37 to 46 months. On appeal, Shaw argues that his 60-month
        sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court
        improperly weighed the sentencing factors, focused primarily on
        his history, characteristics and oﬀense conduct, and failed to give
        adequate consideration to the advisory guidelines range. After
        review, we aﬃrm Shaw’s sentence.
                         I.     BACKGROUND FACTS
        A.    April 2022 Traﬃc Stop
               In April 2022, police oﬃcers observed a black 2007 Ford
        Mustang with illegally tinted windows. They also smelled a strong
        odor of marijuana coming from the Mustang. The oﬃcers
        attempted to pull the vehicle over, but the driver refused to stop.
        Eventually, the driver stopped and parked the vehicle, and the
        driver and the passenger exited the vehicle.
             The oﬃcers approached them in the yard of the house
        where they parked. The oﬃcers asked the driver, Tyquerrious
USCA11 Case: 23-11505      Document: 21-1      Date Filed: 04/24/2024     Page: 3 of 11

        23-11505               Opinion of the Court                         3

        Ford, for his license. Ford said he did not have his license with him,
        refused to identify himself, and attempted to walk toward the
        house. Ford was detained.
                One oﬃcer approached the passenger side of the vehicle to
        initiate a search. Defendant Shaw, who had exited from the
        passenger side, leaned against the passenger door to prevent the
        oﬃcer from opening it. The oﬃcer grabbed Shaw’s wrist, but
        Shaw escaped the oﬃcer’s grasp and ﬂed the scene.
               A search of the car revealed: (1) a loaded Glock Model 17
        pistol, equipped with an extended 31-round magazine, in the
        driver’s seat; (2) a green bookbag containing a Springﬁeld XD
        semiautomatic pistol and two bags of suspected marijuana in the
        front passenger seat; and (3) a black bookbag containing three
        vacuum-sealed bags of suspected marijuana, an electronic scale,
        and approximately 100 small baggies in the backseat. The loaded
        Glock Model 17 was illegally modiﬁed with an automatic selector
        switch. 1 The Springﬁeld XD semiautomatic pistol was a stolen
        weapon.
                Ford was taken to the Muscogee County Jail, and oﬃcers
        attempted to identify and locate defendant Shaw. Following Ford’s
        arrest, he claimed ownership of the black bookbag and its contents.

        1 An automatic selector switch allows the operator of the firearm to
        continuously fire bullets with one pull of the trigger.
USCA11 Case: 23-11505        Document: 21-1         Date Filed: 04/24/2024       Page: 4 of 11

        4                         Opinion of the Court                     23-11505

        B.     July 2022 Execution of Arrest Warrants
               On April 26, 2022, oﬃcers secured arrest warrants for
        defendant Shaw for: (1) possession of marijuana with intent to
        distribute; (2) possession of a ﬁrearm during the commission of
        certain crimes; (3) theft by receiving a stolen ﬁrearm; (4) possession
        of dangerous weapon (machine gun); (5) possession of drug related
        objects; and (5) obstruction of an oﬃcer.
               In July 2022, more than two months after oﬃcers secured
        Shaw’s arrest warrants, Shaw was found in an AutoZone parking
        lot in Columbus, Georgia. Shaw was sitting in the passenger seat
        of a white Dodge Challenger. Shaw was detained. Oﬃcers found
        a loaded black Del-Ton 5.56 semiautomatic riﬂe in the passenger
        seat where Shaw was sitting. The riﬂe was modiﬁed so that it
        would hold two taped-together 30-round magazines. The riﬂe was
        loaded with 37 rounds of ammunition and was outﬁtted with a
        brass catcher.2
               Shaw was arrested and the riﬂe was seized.
        C.     Indictment and Guilty Plea
               In August 2022, a federal indictment charged Shaw with two
        counts of possession of a ﬁrearm by a convicted felon, in violation
        of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). The ﬁrst count (“Count 3”)

        2 A brass catcher “is a device designed to capture spent bullet casings, often

        made of brass, as they are ejected from a firearm.”
USCA11 Case: 23-11505      Document: 21-1     Date Filed: 04/24/2024     Page: 5 of 11

        23-11505               Opinion of the Court                        5

        was the ﬁrearm possession in April 2022 and the second count
        (“Count 4”) was the ﬁrearm possession in July 2022.
               On December 7, 2022, Shaw pleaded guilty to both counts
        of possession of a ﬁrearm by a convicted felon without a written
        plea agreement.
        D.    Presentence Investigation Report
               Shaw’s presentence investigation report (“PSI”) calculated a
        total oﬀense level of 19 and a criminal history category of III. Shaw
        received two criminal points for two prior felony convictions for (1)
        receiving stolen property over $500 and driving without a license
        and (2) three counts of receiving stolen property over $500, two
        counts of theft by unlawful taking (motor vehicle), two counts of
        ﬂeeing or evading police in the second degree, and leaving the
        scene of an accident. Shaw received two additional criminal
        history points because he committed the instant oﬀenses while on
        probation, for a total criminal history score of four. Shaw also had
        a juvenile criminal history, for which he received no criminal
        history points, consisting of adjudications of delinquency for
        (1) aggravated child molestation and aggravated sodomy of a nine-
        year-old girl (when he was 11 years old) and (2) burglary (when he
        was 15 years old), and (3) theft by taking (when he was 15 years
        old).
              Shaw’s advisory guidelines range was 37 to 46 months’
        imprisonment. The PSI stated that the district court could
        consider, in determining whether Shaw merited an upward-
        variance sentence: (1) the nature of his oﬀense; (2) his signiﬁcant
USCA11 Case: 23-11505      Document: 21-1     Date Filed: 04/24/2024     Page: 6 of 11

        6                      Opinion of the Court                23-11505

        and dangerous criminal history; (3) his continued criminal conduct
        while on court supervision; and (4) his personal history.
               The PSI reported that according to documents from the
        Muscogee County Sheriﬀ’s oﬃce, Shaw was “a veriﬁed member of
        the criminal street gang Zohannon.” While Shaw dropped out of
        high school, he informed the probation oﬃcer that he obtained his
        G.E.D. while in a youth detention center in Dalton, Georgia. Shaw
        reported that he had a full-time job at the Kia assembly plant in
        West Point, Georgia, from February to May 2022. Shaw reported
        that he supported himself by working odd jobs and uploading his
        rap music to various internet sites.
        E.    Sentencing
               On April 13, 2023, the district court held a sentencing
        hearing. Shaw ﬁled no written objection to the ﬁnal PSI. And at
        sentencing, Shaw’s counsel stated she had no objections to the
        guidelines calculations in the PSI. But as to the PSI’s discussion of
        factors that might warrant an upward variance, Shaw’s counsel
        stated that the majority of his criminal history occurred when he
        was a juvenile and that he was already adjudicated for that conduct.
        Shaw’s counsel stated that his two prior felony convictions that
        were factored into his criminal history category resulted “from
        being around the wrong people in Kentucky.” Shaw’s counsel also
        noted that the instant oﬀenses were “his very ﬁrst violent crime[s]
        involving a ﬁrearm.”
              Shaw’s counsel emphasized that he was only 23 years old,
        had a young child, and that once he was released, he intended to
USCA11 Case: 23-11505        Document: 21-1        Date Filed: 04/24/2024   Page: 7 of 11

        23-11505                 Opinion of the Court                         7

        ﬁnd a job and leave Columbus for somewhere he could start fresh
        and get back on the right path. Shaw apologized for his actions and
        expressed his desire to be there for his daughter in the long run.
                The district court inquired into: (1) Shaw’s education and
        employment history; (2) Shaw’s purported gang membership;
        (3) his reasons for possessing the ﬁrearms; and (4) the government’s
        position on an upward variance. After this discussion, the district
        court noted that it had considered the advisory sentencing
        guidelines range and found it “inadequate.” The district court
        stated that it was choosing to vary upward based upon the factors
        in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), “particularly the nature and circumstances
        of the oﬀense and the history and characteristics of [Shaw].” The
        district court determined that an upward-variance sentence was
        necessary to accomplish the purpose of the § 3553(a) factors as well
        as to protect the public. The district court sentenced Shaw to 60-
        month terms of imprisonment on each conviction to run
        concurrently. Shaw objected to the procedural and substantive
        reasonableness of his sentence.
                                  II.    DISCUSSION
              On appeal, Shaw now challenges only the substantive
        reasonableness of his sentence.3

        3 On appeal, Shaw does not challenge his convictions.
USCA11 Case: 23-11505          Document: 21-1          Date Filed: 04/24/2024          Page: 8 of 11

        8                           Opinion of the Court                        23-11505

        A.      Substantive Reasonableness
                “We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for
        abuse of discretion, considering the totality of the circumstances.”
        United States v. Oudomsine, 57 F.4th 1262, 1266 (11th Cir. 2023). As
        the party challenging the sentence, Shaw bears the burden of
        showing that the district court’s chosen sentence was an abuse of
        discretion based on the record and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.4
        See id.; United States v. Williams, 526 F.3d 1312, 1322 (11th Cir. 2008).
               In reviewing whether the district court abused its discretion,
        we will not reverse a sentence solely because we could reasonably
        conclude that a diﬀerent sentence was more appropriate. Gall v.
        United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Rather, we will vacate a
        sentence only if we are left with a “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.”

        4 The § 3553(a) sentencing factors include: (1) the nature and circumstances of

        the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need
        for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect
        for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense; (3) to afford
        adequate deterrence to criminal conduct; (4) to protect the public from further
        crimes of the defendant; (5) the need to provide the defendant with
        educational or vocational training or medical care; (6) the applicable
        Sentencing Guidelines range and the kinds of sentences available; (7) the
        pertinent policy statements of the Sentencing Commission; (8) the need to
        avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities; and (9) the need to provide
        restitution to the victims. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38,
        50 n.6 (2007).
USCA11 Case: 23-11505      Document: 21-1      Date Filed: 04/24/2024     Page: 9 of 11

        23-11505               Opinion of the Court                         9

        United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1190 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc)
        (quotation marks omitted).
                “The weight given to any speciﬁc § 3553(a) factor is
        committed to the sound discretion of the district court.” United
        States v. Johnson, 803 F.3d 610, 618 (11th Cir. 2015). While the
        district court must consider all § 3553(a) factors, it is permitted to
        attach “great weight” to one factor over others. United States v.
        Overstreet, 713 F.3d 627, 638 (11th Cir. 2013) (quotation marks
        omitted). Additionally, “[p]lacing substantial weight on a
        defendant’s criminal record is entirely consistent with § 3553(a)
        because ﬁve of the factors it requires a court to consider are related
        to criminal history.” United States v. Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d 1249,
        1263 (11th Cir. 2015).
                In imposing an upward variance, the district court is
        permitted to “consider conduct that a probation oﬃcer already had
        considered in calculating the defendant’s advisory guidelines
        range.” Johnson, 803 F.3d at 619 (quotation marks omitted). The
        district court may impose an upward variance if it concludes that
        the guideline range “understated” a defendant’s criminal history.
        United States v. Osorio-Moreno, 814 F.3d 1282, 1288 (11th Cir. 2016).
        The district court generally has “broad leeway in deciding how
        much weight to give to prior crimes the defendant has committed.”
        Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d at 1261.
        B.    Shaw’s 60-Month Sentence
              On appeal, Shaw argues his 60-month sentence is
        substantively unreasonable because the district court improperly
USCA11 Case: 23-11505      Document: 21-1      Date Filed: 04/24/2024     Page: 10 of 11

        10                     Opinion of the Court                  23-11505

        weighed the § 3553(a) sentencing factors, focused primarily on his
        history, characteristics, and oﬀense conduct, and failed to give
        adequate consideration to the advisory guidelines range. Shaw
        contends that his guidelines range adequately accounted for his
        conduct and criminal history and therefore, the district court’s
        upward variance constitutes an abuse of discretion.
                Shaw has not shown that the 14-month upward variance is
        substantively unreasonable. During Shaw’s sentencing hearing, the
        district court stated that it had considered the § 3553(a) factors and
        the advisory guidelines range of 37 to 46 months’ imprisonment.
        In varying upward, the district court relied on the following: (1) the
        nature and circumstances of Shaw’s two instant ﬁrearm oﬀenses;
        (2) Shaw’s history and characteristics; and (3) the need to protect
        the public. The district court was entitled to give signiﬁcant weight
        to these factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1); Johnson, 803 F.3d at 618.
               Moreover, the district court did not commit a clear error of
        judgment in concluding that a sentence within the advisory
        guidelines range was inadequate in light of those factors, which
        included Shaw’s commission of two § 922(g) ﬁrearm oﬀenses
        within three months; his attempt to prevent oﬃcers from searching
        the Ford Mustang; his subsequent ﬂight from the oﬃcers; his
        possession of both extended magazines and a brass catcher; and his
        pattern of criminal activity, which included crimes that were not
        assessed criminal-history points because of his status as a juvenile.
        See Johnson, 803 F.3d at 618; Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d at 1261.
USCA11 Case: 23-11505    Document: 21-1     Date Filed: 04/24/2024   Page: 11 of 11

        23-11505              Opinion of the Court                     11

               Here, there is ample evidence in Shaw’s background and
        relevant conduct to implicate strongly the need to protect the
        public, for deterrence, and to promote respect for the law. See 18
        U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A), (a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C).
                             III.   CONCLUSION
               For these reasons, we conclude that Shaw has not shown
        that his 60-month sentence is substantively unreasonable. We
        therefore aﬃrm.
              AFFIRMED.