Court Opinion

ID: 9840430
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-18 16:00:52.46754+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:46:27.161138
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-10749    Document: 30-1     Date Filed: 09/18/2023   Page: 1 of 8

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-10749
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       THADDIUS DESHAWN JOHNSON,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                   D.C. Docket No. 2:22-cr-14044-AMC-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-10749      Document: 30-1       Date Filed: 09/18/2023     Page: 2 of 8

       2                       Opinion of the Court                  23-10749

       Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Thaddius Johnson appeals his sentence of 96 months in
       prison, an upward variance from the guideline range of 63 to 78
       months, for possessing a firearm after a felony conviction. On ap-
       peal, Johnson maintains that the district court failed to adequately
       explain its reasons for rejecting the government’s guideline-range
       recommendation. After careful review, we affirm.
                                          I.
              Johnson pled guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm after
       having been convicted of a felony. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). In
       connection with his plea agreement, Johnson signed a factual prof-
       fer about his offense. According to the factual proffer, after a traffic
       stop, officers searched the vehicle in which Johnson was a passen-
       ger and located a black zippered bag on the floorboard where he
       had been sitting. The bag contained a Glock 9mm pistol and a
       loaded magazine. After his arrest on state charges, Johnson was
       recorded in jail phone calls attempting to arrange for another per-
       son to claim ownership of the bag and gun. Johnson knew he pre-
       viously had been convicted of several felonies.
               Based on these facts, Johnson’s presentence investigation re-
       port (“PSR”) recommended a total offense level of 21. And based
       on Johnson’s criminal history—including convictions for grand
       theft, burglary of a structure, grand theft with a firearm, armed bur-
       glary, being a felon in possession of a firearm or ammunition, and
USCA11 Case: 23-10749     Document: 30-1      Date Filed: 09/18/2023    Page: 3 of 8

       23-10749               Opinion of the Court                        3

       resisting arrest with violence—the PSR calculated 15 criminal-his-
       tory points, for the highest criminal-history category of VI.
               Johnson raised objections to his guideline range not relevant
       to this case. The district court sustained one objection, denied an-
       other, and calculated a guideline range of 63 to 78 months of im-
       prisonment.
              The government recommended a guideline-range sentence
       of 72 months based on its assessment of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
       sentencing factors, including the nature and circumstances of the
       offense, Johnson’s criminal history, and the need to protect the
       public. The government also asked the court to state whether its
       rulings on Johnson’s objections would have changed the sentence.
               In mitigation, Johnson’s counsel read a written statement
       from Johnson, in which he accepted responsibility, described his
       difficult upbringing, and asked the district court for mercy. Coun-
       sel requested a sentence of 63 months, at the low end of the guide-
       line range. He argued that a longer sentence was unnecessary be-
       cause Johnson was getting older and would have the benefit of fed-
       eral occupational and drug-treatment programs.
              The district court upwardly varied from the guideline range
       and sentenced Johnson to 96 months in prison. After stating that it
       had considered the PSR, the parties’ statements, and the “full
       3553(a) panoply of factors,” the court explained its sentencing deci-
       sion as follows:
             [R]egrettably, Mr. Johnson, your criminal history is
             exceedingly concerning to the Court. It is riddled
USCA11 Case: 23-10749     Document: 30-1     Date Filed: 09/18/2023    Page: 4 of 8

       4                     Opinion of the Court                 23-10749

             with violence, gun possession, and other very, very
             troubling circumstances that unfortunately present a
             real danger to the community and I think warrant a
             very strong and substantial sentence to protect the
             public and to deter you specifically from committing
             future criminal acts.
                    Unfortunately, the prior sentences you have
             received have not deterred you, including a 66-month
             sentence that one would have hoped would have sent
             the message; but, unfortunately, you continue to
             commit these offenses, and that’s not to say you are
             not fully capable of turning your life around. But at
             this point, based on the record I have been presented
             with, I do believe a sentence—an upwardly varied
             sentence from the calculated range of 63 to 78 months
             is warranted.
               Johnson objected that the district court’s reliance on his
       criminal history rendered the sentence a departure, for which the
       court failed to provide the necessary notice. The court responded
       that the sentence was an upward variance based on “the need to
       protect the public from further crimes of the defendant, the need
       to specifically deter him, the need to promote respect for the law.”
       It also stated it would have imposed the same sentence regardless
       of its resolution of the guideline issues. Johnson appeals.
USCA11 Case: 23-10749      Document: 30-1     Date Filed: 09/18/2023     Page: 5 of 8

       23-10749               Opinion of the Court                         5

                                        II.
              In reviewing a sentence, we must “ensure that the district
       court committed no significant procedural error,” such as failing to
       accurately calculate the guideline range or “failing to adequately
       explain the chosen sentence—including an explanation for any de-
       viation from the Guidelines range.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
       38, 51 (2007); see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c) (“The court, at the time of
       sentencing, shall state in open court the reasons for its imposition
       of the particular sentence . . . .”).
               The task of sentencing a defendant belongs to the district
       court. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). At sentencing, the court must
       calculate the guideline range and “giv[e] both parties an oppor-
       tunity to argue for whatever sentence they deem appropriate.”
       Gall, 552 U.S. at 49. The court must “then consider all of the
       § 3553(a) factors to determine whether they support the sentence
       requested by a party,” making an “individual assessment based on
       the facts presented.” Id. at 49–50. If the court decides that a sen-
       tence outside the guideline range is appropriate, it must ensure its
       “justification is sufficiently compelling to support the degree of the
       variance.” Id. at 50. And it “must adequately explain the chosen
       sentence to allow for meaningful appellate review and to promote
       the perception of fair sentencing.” Id.
               To adequately explain the sentence, the district court must
       “set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that [it] has consid-
       ered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising
       [its] own legal decisionmaking authority.” Rita v. United States, 551
USCA11 Case: 23-10749         Document: 30-1         Date Filed: 09/18/2023         Page: 6 of 8

       6                          Opinion of the Court                       23-10749

       U.S. 338, 356 (2007). The “court is not required to incant the spe-
       cific language used in the guidelines or articulate its consideration
       of each individual § 3553(a) factor.” United States v. Carpenter, 803
       F.3d 1224, 1232 (11th Cir. 2015) (quotation marks omitted). “Nor
       must the court respond in detail to every argument presented by
       the defendant; after all, the appropriateness of brevity or length,
       conciseness or detail, when to write, what to say, depends upon
       circumstances.” Id. (cleaned up). “Where the defendant or prose-
       cutor presents nonfrivolous reasons for imposing a different sen-
       tence, however, the judge will normally go further and explain
       why he has rejected those arguments.” Rita, 551 U.S. at 357.
              Johnson maintains that the district court procedurally erred
       by “fail[ing] to explain why it was rejecting the government’s
       guideline-range recommendation,” particularly when it relied on
       many of the same factors cited by the government. In his view, the
       principle of party presentation means that the district court owes a
       “heightened duty to explain” an upward variance over the govern-
       ment’s guideline-range recommendation.
               Here, Johnson has not established any significant procedural
       error. 1 The record contradicts his claim that the district court failed

       1 Johnson does not directly challenge the calculation of his guideline range,

       and he concedes that our precedent permits district courts to render guideline-
       calculation errors harmless in advance, so long as the sentence imposed is rea-
       sonable, even if he disagrees with that precedent. See United States v. Barner,
       572 F.3d 1239, 1248 (11th Cir. 2009) (“Where a district judge clearly states that
       he would impose the same sentence, even if he erred in calculating the guide-
       lines, then any error in the calculation is harmless.”).
USCA11 Case: 23-10749      Document: 30-1     Date Filed: 09/18/2023     Page: 7 of 8

       23-10749               Opinion of the Court                         7

       to explain why it was rejecting the government’s guideline-range
       recommendation. After calculating the guideline range, hearing
       the parties’ arguments for an appropriate sentence, and considering
       the “full 3553(a) panoply of factors,” the court explained its reasons
       for its chosen sentence of 96 months. In the court’s view, Johnson’s
       criminal history—which included “violence, gun possession, and
       other very, very troubling circumstances”—required a “very
       strong and substantial sentence” “to protect the public and to deter
       [him] specifically from committing future criminal acts.” The
       court noted that Johnson had not been deterred by his prior sen-
       tences, which included a 66-month sentence. Accordingly, the
       court reasoned that an upward variance “from the calculated range
       of 63 to 78 months [wa]s warranted.”
               The district court’s explanation was adequate to show that
       it had “considered the parties’ arguments and ha[d] a reasoned basis
       for exercising [its] own legal decisionmaking authority.” Rita, 551
       U.S. at 356. The record shows that, in contrast to the government
       and Johnson, the court believed that Johnson’s case was not the
       type of case covered by the guideline range, due to his troubling
       criminal history and the need for the sentence to protect the public
       and to deter Johnson specifically. Nothing prevented the court
       from choosing a different sentence than the parties recommended
       after making an “individual assessment based on the facts pre-
       sented.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 49–50. And the weight to give the various
       § 3553(a) factors was for the district court, not anyone else. United
       States v. Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d 1249, 1254 (11th Cir. 2015). John-
       son otherwise makes no claim that the court’s justification was not
USCA11 Case: 23-10749     Document: 30-1     Date Filed: 09/18/2023    Page: 8 of 8

       8                     Opinion of the Court                 23-10749

       “sufficiently compelling to support the degree of the variance.”
       Gall, 552 U.S. at 50.
               For these reasons, Johnson has not established that the dis-
       trict court committed any significant procedural error, and he does
       not challenge the substantive reasonableness of his sentence. Ac-
       cordingly, we affirm.
             AFFIRMED.