Court Opinion

ID: 9940952
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-15 18:01:46.374618+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:46:04.349295
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-10806    Document: 27-1     Date Filed: 02/15/2024   Page: 1 of 4

                                               [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-10806
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       RASAAN LARRIER,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Northern District of Georgia
                  D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cr-00240-JPB-JSA-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-10806            Document: 27-1         Date Filed: 02/15/2024        Page: 2 of 4

       2                             Opinion of the Court                      23-10806

       Before NEWSOM, BRASHER, and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Rasaan Larrier appeals his sentence of 72 months’ imprison-
       ment with 5 years of supervised release. He contends the district
       court erred in considering unreliable hearsay evidence to impose a
       6-level enhancement, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2A3.5(b)(1)(A). He as-
       serts the evidence presented by the Government was not suffi-
       ciently reliable, and the court’s Keene 1 finding did not mean that the
       alleged error was harmless as it still affected his substantial rights.
       After review, 2 we affirm.
               Under § 2A3.5(b)(1)(A), the court should apply a 6-level en-
       hancement if the defendant committed a sex offense against some-
       one other than a minor while in failure to register status. We have
       recognized it is not necessary to decide Guidelines issues or remand
       cases for new sentencing proceedings where the Guidelines error,
       if any, did not affect the sentence. United States v. Keene, 470 F.3d
       1347, 1349 (11th Cir. 2006). This rule allows us to avoid “pointless
       reversals and unnecessary do-overs of sentence proceedings.” Id.
       We need not review a Guidelines issue when (1) the district court
       states that it would have imposed the same sentence, even absent

       1
           United States v. Keene, 470 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2006).
       2 We review district court findings of fact for clear error and application of the

       Sentencing Guidelines de novo. United States v. Spriggs, 666 F.3d 1284, 1286
       (11th Cir. 2012). We review the reasonableness of a sentence under a defer-
       ential abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007).
USCA11 Case: 23-10806     Document: 27-1      Date Filed: 02/15/2024    Page: 3 of 4

       23-10806               Opinion of the Court                        3

       an alleged error, and (2) the sentence is substantively reasonable.
       Id. The party challenging the sentence bears the burden of show-
       ing that the sentence is unreasonable considering the record, the
       factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and the substantial deference
       afforded sentencing courts. United States v. Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d
       1249, 1256 (11th Cir. 2015).
               We examine whether a sentence is substantively reasonable
       considering the totality of the circumstances. Gall v. United States,
       552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The district court must consider several sen-
       tencing factors, including the nature of the offense, the defendant’s
       character and history, and the need for the sentence imposed to
       reflect the seriousness of the offense, protect the public, and deter
       criminal conduct. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). A district court abuses its
       discretion when it (1) fails to consider relevant factors that were
       due significant weight, (2) gives an improper or irrelevant factor
       significant weight, or (3) commits a clear error of judgment by bal-
       ancing the proper factors unreasonably. United States v. Irey, 612
       F.3d 1160, 1189 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc). We will vacate on sub-
       stantive reasonableness grounds only if “we are left with the defi-
       nite 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 dic-
       tated by the facts of the case.” Id. at 1190.
             Any alleged error by the district court in calculating the
       Guidelines range is harmless because the court stated it would have
       imposed the same sentence, even if it committed a Guidelines
USCA11 Case: 23-10806      Document: 27-1     Date Filed: 02/15/2024     Page: 4 of 4

       4                      Opinion of the Court                 23-10806

       error, and Larrier’s sentence is substantively reasonable. See Keene,
       470 F.3d at 1349. The court relied on the § 3553(a) factors to deter-
       mine Larrier’s sentence. The court considered both aggravating
       and mitigating circumstances, such as Larrier’s traumatic upbring-
       ing and his criminal history. See Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d at 1256. It
       found Larrier’s predatory actions towards women required specific
       and general deterrence. While Larrier contends Molina-Martinez
       requires more analysis into whether an alleged Guidelines error af-
       fects an individual’s substantial rights than a simple statement indi-
       cating the sentence would be the same, Larrier fails to show the
       court did not engage in that analysis here. He also fails to show the
       court did not consider relevant factors that were due significant
       weight, gave an improper or irrelevant factor significant weight, or
       committed a clear error of judgment by balancing the proper fac-
       tors unreasonably. See Irey, 612 F.3d at 1189.
             We affirm Larrier’s sentence.
             AFFIRMED.