Court Opinion

ID: 9411242
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-26 14:00:46.889141+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:05.721131
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12318    Document: 33-1      Date Filed: 07/26/2023   Page: 1 of 11

                                                    [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                           ____________________

                                 No. 22-12318
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                           ____________________

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                       Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
        versus
        TAVARUS COHEN,

                                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                           ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Florida
                     D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cr-20069-FAM-1
USCA11 Case: 22-12318     Document: 33-1      Date Filed: 07/26/2023    Page: 2 of 11

        2                     Opinion of the Court                 22-12318

                            ____________________

        Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.
        PER CURIAM:
                Tavarus Cohen appeals his 63-month sentence for posses-
        sion of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon, in violation
        of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He contends the district court gave insuf-
        ficient weight under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) to certain mitigating cir-
        cumstances, such as his troubled upbringing and efforts at self-im-
        provement, and instead focused too heavily on prior criminal con-
        duct, resulting in a substantively unreasonable sentence. After
        careful review, we affirm the district court’s sentence.
                             I.     BACKGROUND
               A federal grand jury returned an indictment charging Cohen
        with one count of possession of a firearm and ammunition as a con-
        victed felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2).
        Cohen pled guilty under a written plea agreement. Before Cohen’s
        sentencing, a probation officer prepared a presentence investiga-
        tion report (“PSI”). The PSI provided a description of the offense
        conduct, to which Cohen did not object.
               In summary, it asserted that Miami police officers arrived on
        the scene of an alleged altercation to find Cohen with multiple
        small, bloody lacerations on his face. When officers approached,
        Cohen initially tried to walk away. But he complied with officers’
        instructions to stop.
USCA11 Case: 22-12318         Document: 33-1        Date Filed: 07/26/2023         Page: 3 of 11

        22-12318                  Opinion of the Court                                3

               The officers patted Cohen down for weapons. While that
        was happening, Cohen voluntarily indicated that he had a gun hol-
        stered in his waistline. When the officer checked, sure enough, the
        officer found and then removed a loaded Springfield Armory 9-mm
        handgun from Cohen’s waistband. Cohen also said he was a con-
        victed felon. A records check revealed that Cohen, in fact, had
        twenty felony convictions and had not had his right to possess a
        firearm restored. At this point, the officers arrested Cohen.
               That same day, Cohen was released on bond. But less than
        three weeks later, he was arrested again for possession of ammuni-
        tion by a convicted felon and possession of cocaine.
               For this conduct, the PSI assigned Cohen a base offense level
        of 20. But because the PSI recommended finding that Cohen ac-
        cepted responsibility, under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a) and (b), the PSI rec-
        ommended a reduced offense level of 17.
               The PSI also attributed 17 criminal-history points to Cohen,
        placing him in the highest criminal-history category of VI. That
        criminal history included, among other things, several convictions
        for drug crimes, a conviction for possession of a firearm by a con-
        victed felon, and a conviction for attempting to bring marijuana
        into a prison. The PSI listed also nine prior sentences that were not
        counted towards Cohen’s criminal-history points, 1 as well as

        1 These include convictions in 2001, 2004, and 2011 for grand theft; convictions

        in 2002 for carrying a concealed firearm and unlawful possession of a firearm
        by a convicted felon; and convictions in 2002, 2006, and 2009 for drug-related
        offenses.
USCA11 Case: 22-12318        Document: 33-1       Date Filed: 07/26/2023       Page: 4 of 11

        4                        Opinion of the Court                    22-12318

        charges that either were not prosecuted or were pending. 2 In short,
        according to the PSI, Cohen has been arrested 45 times, convicted
        of 20 felonies, and sentenced to state prison twice, serving a forty-
        two-month sentence in 2009 for felon in possession and a 20-month
        sentence in 2013 for introducing contraband into a prison.
               With an adjusted offense level of 17 and a criminal-history
        category of VI, Cohen’s applicable guidelines range was 51 to 63
        months’ imprisonment. The statutory maximum term of impris-
        onment that Cohen could have received was ten years. 18 U.S.C.
        § 924(a)(2).
                Beyond his criminal behavior, as relevant here, the PSI
        noted that Cohen was mainly raised by a single mother. When he
        was four or five years old, he was physically abused by his maternal
        uncle, who also lived in the house. And Cohen was five when his
        mother married his stepfather, who was addicted to controlled sub-
        stances during Cohen’s “formative years.” Cohen consumed his
        first alcoholic beverage at age 8, smoked marijuana for the first
        time at age 13, and uses marijuana daily.
              As far as educational skills and employment go, Cohen re-
        ceived his GED in 2009, completed a semester of business

        2 The then-pending charges were for driving with a suspended license in 2019

        and then failing to appear in March 2022, as well as the February 23, 2022,
        charges for possession of cocaine and unlawful possession of ammunition by
        a convicted felon.
USCA11 Case: 22-12318      Document: 33-1     Date Filed: 07/26/2023     Page: 5 of 11

        22-12318               Opinion of the Court                        5

        management that year, and has owned a silk-screen printing busi-
        ness since 2018.
               At sentencing, Cohen contended that the district court
        should consider his personal growth given his troubled and tumul-
        tuous upbringing. Specifically, he asserted that his single-parent
        household and abuse led to his long history of substance abuse, and
        that his “poor choices” do not “tell the entire story.” As Cohen
        described it, he made attempts at self-improvement, including serv-
        ing as a mentor in his daughters’ lives, obtaining his GED and col-
        lege credits, and finding employment while he was not incarcer-
        ated. As to his offense conduct—(once again) being a convicted
        felon in possession of a firearm—Cohen maintained he carried fire-
        arms to protect himself, and he asked the court to consider that he
        took accountability at every stage of the instant offense, showing
        respect for the court and law enforcement.
                For its part, the government argued that a 63-month sen-
        tence was appropriate given Cohen’s criminal history. In particu-
        lar, the government emphasized Cohen’s repeated convictions for
        possession of firearms as a felon and his continued criminal activity
        even while incarcerated—that is, his introduction of marijuana into
        prison. The government also pointed out that Cohen was arrested
        for possession of cocaine while out on bond for the instant offense
        and that the PSI contained many instances of unprosecuted violent
        conduct. Based on these circumstances, the government argued
        for a sentence at the high end of the guidelines, asserting it would
USCA11 Case: 22-12318       Document: 33-1        Date Filed: 07/26/2023      Page: 6 of 11

        6                        Opinion of the Court                    22-12318

        best serve the goals of specific deterrence, protecting the public,
        and promoting Cohen’s respect for the law.
                The district court explicitly mentioned its obligation to con-
        sider all § 3553(a) factors and ultimately imposed a sentence of 63
        months’ imprisonment, followed by 3 years of supervised release.
        It acknowledged Cohen’s acceptance of responsibility and indi-
        cated that it would impose a sentence within the guidelines. 3 But
        noting the repeated nature of Cohen’s offenses and that his half-
        sisters dealt with a similar upbringing and were able to overcome
        the circumstances, the court explained that to protect the public, it
        would not impose a sentence at the low end of the guidelines.
               On appeal, Cohen argues the district court’s sentence is sub-
        stantively unreasonable. He contends that the district court’s focus
        on his prior weapon-related oﬀenses was insuﬃcient to account for
        the sentence imposed. In Cohen’s view, the 63-month sentence
        goes beyond what is necessary to achieve the goals of deterrence,
        rehabilitation, and punishment. Cohen argues that he carried ﬁre-
        arms for self-defense, not for the purpose of violent crimes. He
        urges that the district court failed to consider all the § 3553(a) fac-
        tors and this court should vacate his sentence and remand for re-
        sentencing.

        3 The judge noted he believed Cohen should be punished for longer, but be-

        cause of Cohen’s acceptance of responsibility, stated he would sentence Co-
        hen within the guidelines.
USCA11 Case: 22-12318       Document: 33-1      Date Filed: 07/26/2023      Page: 7 of 11

        22-12318                Opinion of the Court                          7

                                II.    DISCUSSION
               We review the reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of dis-
        cretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). “Substantive
        reasonableness involves examining the totality of the circum-
        stances and whether the sentence is supported by the sentencing
        factors outlined in § 3553(a).” United States v. Wayerski, 624 F.3d
        1342, 1353 (11th Cir. 2010). The challenging party bears the burden
        of showing that the sentence is unreasonable in light of the entire
        record, the § 3553(a) factors, and the substantial deference afforded
        to sentencing courts. United States v. Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d 1249,
        1256 (11th Cir. 2015).
                “A district court abuses its discretion and imposes a substan-
        tively unreasonable sentence only if it (1) fails to afford considera-
        tion to relevant factors that were due significant weight, (2) gives
        significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or (3) com-
        mits a clear error of judgment in considering the proper factors.”
        Id. (quotation marks omitted). It commits a clear error of judg-
        ment when it considers the proper factors but balances them un-
        reasonably. United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1189 (11th Cir. 2010)
        (en banc). But the district court is not required to state on the record
        that it has explicitly considered each of the § 3553(a) factors or to
        discuss each of the § 3553(a) factors. United States v. Kuhlman, 711
        F.3d 1321, 1327 (11th Cir. 2013). Instead, it is enough that the rec-
        ord reflects the district court’s consideration of the § 3553(a) fac-
        tors. United States v. Cabezas-Montano, 949 F.3d 567, 609 (11th Cir.
        2020). Thus, the failure to discuss mitigating evidence does not
        necessarily indicate that the district court erroneously ignored or
USCA11 Case: 22-12318       Document: 33-1      Date Filed: 07/26/2023      Page: 8 of 11

        8                       Opinion of the Court                  22-12318

        failed to consider this evidence. United States v. Amedeo, 487 F.3d
        823, 833 (11th Cir. 2007).
                That said, the district court must impose a sentence that is
        sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the pur-
        poses listed in § 3553(a)(2), including the need to reflect the serious-
        ness of the offense, promote respect for the law, provide just pun-
        ishment, adequately deter criminal conduct, protect the public
        from the defendant’s future criminal conduct, and effectively pro-
        vide the defendant needed training, care or treatment. See 18
        U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). In addition, the court must consider (1) the na-
        ture and circumstances of the offense and the history and charac-
        teristics of the defendant; (3) the kinds of sentences available; (4)
        the guideline sentencing range; (5) any pertinent policy statements;
        (6) the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities among de-
        fendants with similar records who have been convicted of similar
        conduct; and (7) the need to provide restitution to any victims. 18
        U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (3)-(7).
                We “commit[] to the sound discretion of the district court
        the weight to be accorded to each § 3553(a) factor.” United States v.
        Perkins, 787 F.3d 1329, 1342 (11th Cir. 2015). We will vacate a dis-
        trict court’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) fac-
        tors” as evidenced by a sentence “that is outside the range of rea-
        sonable sentences dictated by the facts of the case.” United States v.
USCA11 Case: 22-12318         Document: 33-1         Date Filed: 07/26/2023         Page: 9 of 11

        22-12318                   Opinion of the Court                                9

        Goldman, 953 F.3d 1213, 1222 (11th Cir. 2020) (quotation marks
        omitted). 4
                While we do not apply a presumption of reasonableness to
        sentences within the guideline range, we ordinarily expect such a
        sentence to be reasonable. United States v. Stanley, 739 F.3d 633, 656
        (11th Cir. 2014). And “a sentence imposed well below the statutory
        maximum penalty is an indicator of a reasonable sentence.” United
        States v. Taylor, 997 F.3d 1348, 1355 (11th Cir. 2021).
               Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion, and its
        sentence is not substantively unreasonable. The record reflects
        that the court did not ignore relevant factors, did not give signifi-
        cant weight to an improper factor, and did not clearly err in con-
        sidering proper factors. See Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d at 1256. Instead,
        it examined the totality of the circumstances, and the resulting sen-
        tence is supported by the sentencing factors outlined in § 3553(a).
        See Wayerski, 624 F.3d at 1353.
               Although Cohen claims the district court did not give suffi-
        cient weight to certain factors, including his troubled childhood
        and rehabilitation efforts, the sentencing transcript shows the court
        in fact did acknowledge Cohen’s tough background. The judge
        noted he had read the PSI, mentioned Cohen’s childhood and drug-
        abuse problems, and looked favorably upon Cohen’s acceptance of

        4 The district court may base its findings of fact on undisputed statements in

        the PSI. United States v. Bennett, 472 F.3d 825, 832 (11th Cir. 2006). “[F]ailure
        to object to allegations of fact in a PSI admits those facts for sentencing pur-
        poses.” United States v. Wade, 458 F.3d 1273, 1277 (11th Cir. 2006).
USCA11 Case: 22-12318     Document: 33-1      Date Filed: 07/26/2023    Page: 10 of 11

        10                     Opinion of the Court                22-12318

        responsibility. Even if the district court didn’t explicitly mention
        every piece of mitigating evidence, that does not mean it errone-
        ously failed to consider it. Amedeo, 487 F.3d at 833. Here, the rec-
        ord reflects the court’s consideration of the § 3553(a) factors. See
        Cabezas Montano, 949 F.3d at 609.
               In declining Cohen’s request to impose a low-end guideline
        sentence, the district court noted that not only did Cohen’s siblings
        overcome the same circumstances, but also, the court simply
        elected to give more significant weight to Cohen’s repeated crimi-
        nal history and convictions for possession of firearms as a felon.
        Past criminal behavior is not an improper or irrelevant factor.
        Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d at 1256. And we defer to the district court’s
        reasonable assessment of the weight that should be accorded to
        each 3553(a) factor. Perkins, 787 F.3d at 1342. Here, the district
        court’s determination that Cohen’s criminal history and repeated
        convictions for possession of firearms as a felon outweighed Co-
        hen’s mitigating circumstances was not unreasonable. The 63-
        month sentence imposed is also within the guidelines range and
        well below the statutory minimum of ten years, both of which
        serve as indicators of a reasonable sentence. Stanley, 739 F.3d at
        656; Taylor, 997 F.3d at 1355. We are left with no definite and firm
        conviction that the district court committed a clear error. See Gold-
        man, 953 F.3d at 1222.
              In sum, the district court did not impose a substantively un-
        reasonable sentence. The court considered the totality of the cir-
        cumstances—including Cohen’s lengthy criminal history and prior
USCA11 Case: 22-12318     Document: 33-1      Date Filed: 07/26/2023    Page: 11 of 11

        22-12318               Opinion of the Court                       11

        gun-related offenses, properly relied on his unobjected-to conduct
        in the PSI, and did not commit a clear error of judgment when it
        weighed the § 3553(a) factors.
                For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court
        is affirmed.
              AFFIRMED.