Court Opinion

ID: 9889724
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-11 14:00:45.633138+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:48:20.798660
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-12451    Document: 23-1     Date Filed: 10/11/2023   Page: 1 of 5

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-12451
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       CODY MACK MCCORMICK,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Middle District of Florida
                 D.C. Docket No. 3:23-cr-00020-MMH-MCR-1
                           ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-12451      Document: 23-1         Date Filed: 10/11/2023   Page: 2 of 5

       2                       Opinion of the Court                  23-12451

       Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Cody McCormick appeals his sentence of 12 months’ impris-
       onment with 3 years of supervised release for possession of ammu-
       nition by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1),
       924(a)(8). He argues that the district court imposed a procedurally
       unreasonable sentence by misapplying U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(2) and
       by failing to impose a reduction based on his possession of ammu-
       nition as a collection. He argues that the district court imposed a
       substantively unreasonable sentence because it gave undue weight
       to his offense conduct, and it failed to take account of his history
       and the nature of the charges against him.
                                             I.
              We review the district court’s factual findings for clear error
       and the application of the Guidelines de novo. United States v. Cald-
       well, 431 F.3d 795, 798 (11th Cir. 2005). To be clearly erroneous, a
       factual finding must leave us with a definite and firm conviction
       that a mistake has been committed. United States v. Rothenberg, 610
       F.3d 621, 624 (11th Cir. 2010). Under § 2K2.1(b)(2), a defendant’s
       base offense level should be reduced to 6 if the defendant possessed
       all ammunition solely for lawful sporting purposes or collection
       and did not unlawfully discharge or otherwise unlawfully use such
       firearms or ammunition. The commentary to the Guidelines is au-
       thoritative unless it violates the Constitution or a federal statute, or
       is inconsistent with, or a plainly erroneous reading of, that
USCA11 Case: 23-12451      Document: 23-1         Date Filed: 10/11/2023   Page: 3 of 5

       23-12451               Opinion of the Court                          3

       guideline. United States v. Cingari, 952 F.3d 1301, 1308 (11th Cir.
       2020). The commentary provides that the relevant surrounding
       circumstances for determining if possession qualifies as a collection
       include the amount and type of ammunition, the location and cir-
       cumstances of possession and actual use, the nature of the defend-
       ant’s criminal history, and the extent to which possession was re-
       stricted by law. § 2K2.1, comment. (n.6). The defendant must
       prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his possession was
       solely for collection purposes. United States v. Skinner, 968 F.2d
       1154, 1156 (11th Cir. 1992).
              Here, the court did not clearly err in finding that McCor-
       mick’s possession of ammunition was not a collection. It consid-
       ered the evidence presented at the sentencing hearing, including
       McCormick’s testimony, and its analysis tracked the analysis set
       forth in the Guidelines commentary. § 2K2.1, comment. (n.6).
       McCormick fails to articulate any response to the court’s conclu-
       sion that his possession had none of the hallmarks of a collection,
       in that he did not know the types of ammunition possessed, did not
       trade it, did not attempt to determine its value, and did not try to
       care for it or display it prominently within his home.
                                            II.
              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). 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)
USCA11 Case: 23-12451      Document: 23-1     Date Filed: 10/11/2023     Page: 4 of 5

       4                      Opinion of the Court                 23-12451

       commits a clear error of judgment by balancing the proper factors
       unreasonably. United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1189 (11th Cir.
       2010) (en banc). The party challenging the sentence bears the bur-
       den of showing that the sentence is unreasonable in light of the
       record, the factors listed in § 3553(a), and the substantial deference
       afforded sentencing courts. United States v. Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d
       1249, 1256 (11th Cir. 2015). The § 3553(a) factors include the nature
       and circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of
       the defendant, and the need for the sentence imposed to reflect the
       seriousness of the offense, punish the defendant, protect the public,
       and deter crime. § 3553(a). The court has discretion to decide how
       much weight to give to each § 3553(a) factor. United States v. Wil-
       liams, 526 F.3d 1312, 1323 (11th Cir 2008). Further, while we do
       not automatically presume a sentence within the guidelines range
       is reasonable, we ordinarily expect a sentence within the guidelines
       range to be reasonable. United States v. Hunt, 526 F.3d 739, 746
       (11th Cir. 2008).
              Here, McCormick’s sentence is substantively reasonable.
       The court did not abuse its discretion in weighing the nature and
       circumstances of his offense, his history and characteristics, includ-
       ing his previous convictions, and the need to protect the public. §
       3553(a). Further, the court’s sentence was at the low end of the
       Guidelines range, indicating that it appropriately considered both
       McCormick’s aggravating circumstances, including his regular
       drug use, his criminal history, and his proclivity for building and
       testing explosives, and his mitigating circumstances, including the
       nature of his offense and his desire to reestablish relationships with
USCA11 Case: 23-12451     Document: 23-1      Date Filed: 10/11/2023    Page: 5 of 5

       23-12451               Opinion of the Court                        5

       his family. See Hunt, 526 F.3d at 746. Finally, the court had discre-
       tion to decide how much weight to give each § 3553(a) factor,
       choosing to emphasize his prior criminal history and his participa-
       tion in dangerous activities like creating explosive devices which
       could harm the public. See Williams, 526 F.3d at 1323.
             AFFIRMED.