Court Opinion

ID: 9368107
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-02 20:01:06.767196+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:05.649800
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-10942    Document: 28-1      Date Filed: 02/02/2023   Page: 1 of 11

                                                    [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                           ____________________

                                 No. 22-10942
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                           ____________________

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                       Plaintiff-Appellee,
        versus
        ANDRAE MARTINIZE CROOK,

                                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                           ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of Alabama
                  D.C. Docket No. 1:19-cr-00296-KOB-HNJ-1
                           ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-10942      Document: 28-1      Date Filed: 02/02/2023     Page: 2 of 11

        2                      Opinion of the Court                 22-10942

        Before ROSENBAUM, JILL PRYOR, and HULL, Circuit Judges.
        PER CURIAM:
              Andrae Martinize Crook appeals his 100-month sentence for
        possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. In January 2019, law
        enforcement responded to a domestic disturbance between Crook
        and his then-girlfriend, Twaneisha Morris. Victim Morris told law
        enforcement that Crook hit her in the face with a firearm.
                 On appeal, Crook challenges the district court’s application
        of a four-level increase under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for
        possession of a firearm in connection with another felony offense
        (i.e., assault). Crook argues that the only evidence to support the
        four-level increase was double hearsay because, at Crook’s
        sentencing hearing, Corporal Adam Sorrell testified about what
        Officer Martin told him that victim Morris said.
                After careful review, we conclude that was not the only
        evidence here. Also, the hearsay evidence was reliable. Thus, the
        district court did not clearly err in applying the four-level increase
        under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). Alternatively, the district court
        stated it would impose the same sentence regardless of the
        outcome of the guidelines issue, and we conclude any error in
        increasing Crook’s offense level by four levels under U.S.S.G.
        § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) was harmless. We affirm Crook’s sentence.
USCA11 Case: 22-10942     Document: 28-1     Date Filed: 02/02/2023    Page: 3 of 11

        22-10942              Opinion of the Court                       3

                                  I.     FACTS
               To set the stage, we begin with Corporal Sorrell’s testimony
        at Crook’s sentencing hearing. We then explain the procedural
        history of this case.
        A.    Corporal Sorrell’s Testimony
               On January 13, 2019, Corporal Sorrell responded to a call
        about a domestic dispute between Crook and Morris. While
        Corporal Sorrell was traveling to the scene, dispatch informed him
        that Crook had left the area and gave Corporal Sorrell a vehicle
        description. Corporal Sorrell saw a vehicle he believed to be
        Crook’s vehicle, so Corporal Sorrell initiated a traffic stop. Once
        Corporal Sorrell pulled that vehicle over, he observed that Crook
        was the lone occupant, and Corporal Sorrell recovered a firearm
        from the vehicle.
               Corporal Sorrell communicated with Officer Martin, who
        was at the scene of the domestic disturbance. According to
        Corporal Sorrell, Officer Martin told him Morris’s face was
        “messed up.” Then, Officer Martin told Corporal Sorrell that
        Morris told Officer Martin that (1) she and Crook had gotten into a
        “physical altercation” and (2) Crook struck her in the face with a
        firearm. In his report, Corporal Sorrell documented Officer
        Martin’s statements about Morris’s statements.
                The next morning, Corporal Sorrell went to see Morris, and
        he observed that “[s]he had severe swelling on the left side of her
        face, [and] her left eye was swollen shut and purple.” So Corporal
USCA11 Case: 22-10942         Document: 28-1         Date Filed: 02/02/2023         Page: 4 of 11

        4                          Opinion of the Court                       22-10942

        Sorrell saw Morris’s injuries for himself. Furthermore, Morris said
        to Corporal Sorrell, “[D]o you see what he did.” Corporal Sorrell
        testified that, in his opinion, Morris’s injuries were consistent with
        being hit in the face with a firearm. Thus, Morris told two officers
        about the incident and her injuries corroborated her report.
        B.      Crook’s Indictment and Guilty Plea
               In May 2019, Crook was indicted for being a convicted felon
        in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). In
        July 2019, Crook pleaded guilty to that offense.
        C.      Crook’s Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”) and
                Objections
                The probation officer prepared a PSR, which recommended
        a base offense level of 24. The PSR also recommended that the
        district court (1) increase the offense level by four levels under
        U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for possession of a firearm in connection
        with another felony offense 1 and (2) reduce the offense level by

        1 The sentencing guidelines provide for a four-level increase to a defendant’s
        base offense level for a firearm offense if the defendant “used or possessed any
        firearm or ammunition in connection with another felony offense.” U.S.S.G.
        § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). This increase applies if the firearm “facilitated, or had the
        potential of facilitating, another felony offense.” Id. cmt. 14(A).
        “Another felony offense” is defined for purposes of this guideline as “any
        federal, state, or local offense, other than the explosive or firearms possession
        or trafficking offense, punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one
        year, regardless of whether a criminal charge was brought, or a conviction
USCA11 Case: 22-10942       Document: 28-1        Date Filed: 02/02/2023      Page: 5 of 11

        22-10942                 Opinion of the Court                            5

        three levels under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a) and (b) for acceptance of
        responsibility and timely notification of Crook’s intention to plead
        guilty. Thus, the adjusted offense level was 25.
               Crook received a criminal history score of 11 points,
        resulting in a criminal history category of V. Crook’s advisory
        guidelines range was 100 to 125 months’ imprisonment. However,
        Crook’s offense carried a statutory maximum term of 120 months’
        imprisonment, 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2), so his guidelines range
        became 100 to 120 months’ imprisonment.
                Crook objected to the PSR’s recommendation that the
        district court apply the four-level increase under U.S.S.G.
        § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). Crook argued that he did not strike Morris in the
        face with the firearm. Accordingly, Crook contended that the total
        offense level should be 21 and the advisory guidelines range should
        be 70 to 87 months’ imprisonment.
        D.     Crook’s Sentencing
               At sentencing, Crook’s counsel reiterated his objection to
        the four-level increase and the facts that triggered that increase.
        Crook’s counsel denied the allegation that Crook used a gun to
        strike Morris and claimed the gun was in his car, not the house
        where the domestic dispute occurred. Crook’s counsel objected to

        obtained.” Id. cmt. 14(C). Crook does not dispute that assault qualifies as
        “another felony offense.”
USCA11 Case: 22-10942      Document: 28-1     Date Filed: 02/02/2023     Page: 6 of 11

        6                      Opinion of the Court                22-10942

        the fact that the allegation arose from a hearsay statement made by
        victim Morris.
              Next, the government called Corporal Sorrell to testify.
        Before and throughout Corporal Sorrell’s testimony (outlined
        above), Crook’s counsel objected to hearsay statements.
               At one point, the district court asked why Officer Martin was
        not present. The government responded that it did not think it was
        necessary to have two officers present since hearsay was allowed
        in sentencing proceedings.
                After Corporal Sorrell testified, Crook’s counsel argued that
        since the court admitted hearsay, it needed to evaluate the
        reliability of the hearsay evidence. Crook’s counsel noted that
        Corporal Sorrell never interacted with Officer Martin and the
        multiple levels of hearsay mattered in the reliability determination.
               The government argued that it met its burden because
        Corporal Sorrell documented the hearsay statements in his report,
        saw Morris’s injuries the morning after the domestic dispute, and
        stated Morris’s injuries were consistent with being struck in the
        face by a firearm.
               The district court found Corporal Sorrell’s testimony—that
        Officer Martin told him Morris said she was struck in the face with
        a firearm—to be credible because it was corroborated by Sorrell’s
        own observation the next morning. Specifically, the district court
        said Corporal Sorrell’s observation the next morning “makes that
        hearsay more reliable” given the evidence of bruising and swelling
USCA11 Case: 22-10942          Document: 28-1   Date Filed: 02/02/2023    Page: 7 of 11

        22-10942                  Opinion of the Court                      7

        on Morris’s face. In so ruling, the district court implicitly found
        Crook had a gun during the domestic dispute.
               The district court thus overruled the objections to Corporal
        Sorrell’s testimony based on reliability and then adopted the factual
        statements and guidelines calculations in the PSR. Crook himself
        did not testify at the hearing.
                The district court sentenced Crook to 100 months’
        imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release. The
        district court explicitly stated that it would have imposed the same
        sentence regardless of how the guidelines issue was resolved.
                Crook did not appeal. Crook filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion
        to vacate his sentence, arguing his attorney was ineffective for
        failing to file a notice of appeal. The district court granted Crook’s
        motion to vacate, vacated his sentence, and set a new sentencing
        hearing.
               At the resentencing hearing, the district court restated the
        advisory guidelines calculations and resentenced Crook to 100
        months’ imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised
        release. The district court adopted the same reasons it stated at the
        original sentencing hearing. This appeal followed.
                         II.      STANDARD OF REVIEW
               We review for clear error a district court’s determination
        that a defendant possessed a gun in connection with another felony
        offense. United States v. Bishop, 940 F.3d 1242, 1250 (11th Cir.
        2019). To be clearly erroneous, this Court must be left with the
USCA11 Case: 22-10942       Document: 28-1       Date Filed: 02/02/2023     Page: 8 of 11

        8                       Opinion of the Court                   22-10942

        “definite and firm conviction” that the district court made a
        mistake. United States v. Almedina, 686 F.3d 1312, 1315 (11th Cir.
        2012).
                                 III.   DISCUSSION
               On appeal, Crook argues that Corporal Sorrell’s testimony
        that Officer Martin told him victim Morris said she was struck in
        the face with a firearm was not sufficient to support the four-level
        increase under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) because it is hearsay.
              A sentencing court may enhance a sentence based on
        hearsay if the evidence has “sufficient indicia of reliability, the court
        makes explicit findings of fact as to credibility, and the defendant
        has an opportunity to rebut the evidence.” United States v.
        Ghertler, 605 F.3d 1256, 1269 (11th Cir. 2010) (quotation marks
        omitted). These three elements were met.
                First, Corporal Sorrell’s testimony that Officer Martin told
        him Morris said she was struck in the face with a firearm has
        sufficient indicia of reliability. Corporal Sorrell visited Morris the
        morning after the domestic dispute and observed Morris’s injuries.
        Corporal Sorrell then testified that those injuries appeared
        consistent with being hit in the face with a firearm. Morris also told
        Corporal Sorrell, “[D]o you see what he did.” Since Corporal
        Sorrell’s observations corroborated Officer Martin’s statement that
        Morris told him she was struck in the face with a firearm, the
        district court found that the hearsay evidence was sufficiently
        reliable.
USCA11 Case: 22-10942      Document: 28-1     Date Filed: 02/02/2023     Page: 9 of 11

        22-10942               Opinion of the Court                        9

               Second, the district court explicitly stated it found Corporal
        Sorrell’s testimony that Officer Martin told him Morris said she was
        struck in the face with a firearm to be credible because it was
        corroborated by his own observations the next morning. Third,
        Crook had the opportunity to rebut the evidence at his sentencing
        hearing.
              Alternatively, any error in increasing Crook’s offense level
        by four levels under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) was harmless.
               Under our precedent, a guidelines calculation error is
        harmless if (1) the district court stated it would impose the same
        sentence even if it decided the guidelines issue in the defendant’s
        favor and (2) assuming an error occurred and the lower guidelines
        range applied, the sentence resulting from consideration of the 18
        U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors would still be reasonable. United States v.
        Keene, 470 F.3d 1347, 1349–50 (11th Cir. 2006).
              Here, the district court, in imposing the 100-month
        sentence, stated on the record that it would have imposed the same
        sentence regardless of the outcome of the guidelines issue.
        Further, as explained below, the district court’s 100-month
        sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the circumstances
        and the § 3553(a) factors.
              “We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for
        abuse of discretion, considering the totality of the circumstances.”
        United States v. Oudomsine, __ F.4th ___, No. 22-10924, 2023 WL
        220349, at *2 (11th Cir. Jan. 18, 2023). “We will vacate a
USCA11 Case: 22-10942         Document: 28-1         Date Filed: 02/02/2023        Page: 10 of 11

        10                          Opinion of the Court                      22-10942

        defendant’s sentence as substantively unreasonable only if we are
        ‘left 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.’” Id. (quoting
        United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1190 (11th Cir. 2010) (en
        banc)).
              Without the four-level increase under U.S.S.G.
        § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B), Crook’s total offense level would have been 21,
        and his advisory guidelines range would have been 70 to 87
        months. U.S.S.G. Ch. 5, Pt. A (table). The district court’s sentence
        of 100 months’ imprisonment would have been a 13-month
        upward variance.
                We conclude the district court properly supported such a
        variance through consideration of the § 3553(a) factors. 2 The
        district court noted that the offense involved a domestic violence
        dispute where a gun was present and stated that the presence of the
        gun “exacerbate[d] the danger.” In other words, even if Crook did

        2 Section 3553(a) directs the court to consider (1) thenature 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, promote respect for
        the law, provide just punishment, deter criminal conduct, protect the public
        from future crimes of the defendant, and provide the defendant with needed
        educational or vocational training or medical care; (3) the kinds of sentences
        available; (4) the applicable guidelines range; (5) the pertinent policy
        statements of the Sentencing Commission; (6) the need to avoid unwarranted
        sentence disparities; and (7) the need to provide restitution to victims.
USCA11 Case: 22-10942     Document: 28-1      Date Filed: 02/02/2023     Page: 11 of 11

        22-10942               Opinion of the Court                        11

        not strike Morris with the gun, the district court nonetheless found
        the presence of the gun during a domestic dispute exacerbated the
        danger. The district court also considered (1) Crook’s “extensive
        criminal history,” including prior convictions for domestic violence
        and assault, (2) “the seriousness of th[e] offense,” and (3) “the need
        to promote respect for the law and afford deterrence to criminal
        conduct.”
                               IV.    CONCLUSION
               For these reasons, we conclude the district court did not
        clearly err in applying the increase under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B).
        Alternatively, any error in increasing Crook’s offense level by four
        levels under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) was harmless. We affirm
        Crook’s 100-month sentence.
              AFFIRMED.