Court Opinion

ID: 9943634
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-23 22:00:57.359787+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:38.730146
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-10548    Document: 56-1     Date Filed: 02/23/2024   Page: 1 of 5

                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-10548
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       GLENN EDWARD MCKENNIE, JR.,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                   D.C. Docket No. 0:18-cr-60277-WPD-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-10548      Document: 56-1      Date Filed: 02/23/2024     Page: 2 of 5

       2                      Opinion of the Court                  23-10548

       Before WILSON, LUCK, and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
             Glenn Edward McKennie, Jr. appeals the revocation of his
       supervised release and the sentence imposed after revocation of his
       supervised release. After review, we affirm.
                                   I. DISCUSSION
       A. Revocation of Supervised Release
              Section 3583(e) permits a district court, upon finding by a
       preponderance of the evidence that a defendant has violated his
       conditions of supervised release, to revoke the term of supervised
       release and impose a term of imprisonment after considering cer-
       tain factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See 18 U.S.C.
       § 3583(e)(3). Section 3553(a) provides that district courts must first
       consider, inter alia, the history and characteristics of the defendant.
       See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
              Moreover, “[c]redibility determinations are typically the
       province of the fact finder because the fact finder personally ob-
       serves the testimony and is thus in a better position than this Court
       to assess the credibility of witnesses.” United States v. Grushko, 50
       F.4th 1, 11 (11th Cir. 2022) (quotation marks and alteration omit-
       ted). We accordingly give substantial deference to a fact finder’s
       credibility determinations. Id.
            The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding
       McKennie, Jr. violated the terms of his supervised release and in
USCA11 Case: 23-10548      Document: 56-1      Date Filed: 02/23/2024     Page: 3 of 5

       23-10548               Opinion of the Court                          3

       revoking McKennie, Jr.’s supervised release. See United States v.
       Cunningham, 607 F.3d 1264, 1266 (11th Cir. 2010) (reviewing the
       revocation of supervised release for abuse of discretion); United
       States v. Copeland, 20 F.3d 412, 413 (11th Cir. 1994) (reviewing the
       district court’s finding a defendant violated the terms of his super-
       vised release for abuse of discretion). Despite McKennie, Jr.’s ar-
       gument the fingerprint evidence was flawed, and he had two broth-
       ers and a father with virtually the same name, the district court
       found “that the three fingerprint cards [we]re for the same person,”
       meaning that McKennie, Jr. “was the same defendant who was
       [sentenced in the 2018 case], the same defendant who was [sen-
       tenced in the 2021 case], and the same defendant who was in the
       park and was told to report and deliberately didn’t report because
       he thought he could pull a fast one and get away with it because of
       the similarities between his brother and his dad’s names.” Further,
       the district court found, based in part on the report from McKen-
       nie, Jr.’s evaluating psychologist, that he had been “attempting to
       impress as mentally impaired” and “fabricated psychiatric impair-
       ment.” The court found he was “malingering with the . . . psy-
       chologist” and “feigning misunderstanding here today.” The dis-
       trict court is in a better position to assess the credibility of McKen-
       nie, Jr., and found his claims of mistaken identity incredible. See
       Grushko, 50 F.4th at 11. This was not an abuse of the district court’s
       discretion.
USCA11 Case: 23-10548      Document: 56-1       Date Filed: 02/23/2024     Page: 4 of 5

       4                       Opinion of the Court                  23-10548

       B. Sentence
               While we typically review the imposition of a sentence upon
       revocation of supervised release for reasonableness, we review an
       objection to the reasonableness of a sentence raised for the first
       time on appeal for plain error. See United States v. Vandergrift, 754
       F.3d 1303, 1307 (11th Cir. 2014). If the explicit language of a statute
       or rule does not resolve an issue, plain error lies only where this
       Court’s or the Supreme Court’s precedent directly resolves it.
       United States v. Moore, 22 F.4th 1258, 1266 (11th Cir. 2022). McKen-
       nie, Jr. cannot show plain error in the district court’s sentence. He
       cannot and does not point to any precedent establishing his mental
       issues warranted a lower sentence or that the court had to articu-
       late specific reasoning for imposing consecutive sentences. See id.
       Thus, he cannot prevail under plain error review.
               Nor can he succeed under a reasonableness standard be-
       cause the district court’s assessment of the relevant 18 U.S.C.
       § 3553(a) factors was reasonable. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). While
       McKennie, Jr. asserts the district court failed to adequately consider
       his history and characteristics, the district court did consider that
       factor, just not in the way McKennie, Jr. desired. Rather, the dis-
       trict court heavily weighed its finding that he lied under oath and
       tried to deceive his probation officer and the court. This was
       within the district court’s discretion. See United States v. Amedeo,
       487 F.3d 823, 832 (11th Cir. 2007) (explaining the weight to be as-
       signed to any sentencing factor under § 3553(a) is committed to the
       district court’s discretion). Additionally, the district court was clear
USCA11 Case: 23-10548     Document: 56-1      Date Filed: 02/23/2024    Page: 5 of 5

       23-10548               Opinion of the Court                        5

       that McKennie, Jr.’s continuation of the mistaken identity claim
       would lead to severe sentencing consequences. The decision to
       run the sentences for the violation in two cases consecutively ra-
       ther than concurrently was well within the district court’s discre-
       tion. See United States v. Sweeting, 437 F.3d 1105, 1107 (11th Cir.
       2006). McKennie, Jr.’s sentence is reasonable.
                               II. CONCLUSION
              The district court did not err in revoking McKennie, Jr.’s su-
       pervised release or in imposing a 27-month sentence for violating
       the terms of his supervised release.
               AFFIRMED.