Court Opinion

ID: 9556293
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-16 20:01:02.115572+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:59.921243
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12620    Document: 23-1      Date Filed: 08/16/2023   Page: 1 of 13

                                                    [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                           ____________________

                                 No. 22-12620
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                           ____________________

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                       Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
        versus
        CAMERON D. CHANDLER,

                                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                           ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Georgia
                   D.C. Docket No. 7:21-cr-00047-HL-TQL-1
                           ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-12620     Document: 23-1      Date Filed: 08/16/2023    Page: 2 of 13

        2                     Opinion of the Court                22-12620

        Before ABUDU, TJOFLAT, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
        PER CURIAM:
               Cameron Chandler appeals his sentence of 90 months’ im-
        prisonment following his conviction for one count of possession of
        a firearm by a convicted felon. Chandler argues that the District
        Court erred in applying an enhancement for possession of a firearm
        in connection to another felony because the firearm was merely
        present when he committed the other felony. He also argues that
        the District Court imposed a procedurally and substantively unrea-
        sonable sentence because the sentence was greater than necessary,
        and the District Court failed to consider or discuss the § 3553(a)
        factors. Finding no error, we affirm.
                                         I.
                In September 2021, a federal grand jury in the Middle Dis-
        trict of Georgia indicted Cameron Chandler on one count of pos-
        session of a ﬁrearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
        §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). Chandler initially pleaded not guilty to
        the charge but later changed his plea to guilty.
                According to the presentence investigation report (the
        “PSR”), on November 13, 2020, loss prevention staﬀ at a depart-
        ment store saw Chandler remove a bottle of cologne from a shelf
        and place it in his clothing. The department store notiﬁed the po-
        lice; the responding oﬃcer and a loss prevention staﬀ member ap-
        proached Chandler and escorted him to the loss prevention oﬃce.
        The oﬃcer attempted to detain Chandler, but he actively resisted
USCA11 Case: 22-12620     Document: 23-1     Date Filed: 08/16/2023    Page: 3 of 13

        22-12620              Opinion of the Court                       3

        and tried to leave the oﬃce. After a brief struggle—which resulted
        in the oﬃcer and loss prevention staﬀ member sustaining multiple
        scratches—Chandler was detained. Additional oﬃcers arrived on
        the scene and searched Chandler. Inside Chandler’s pants, the of-
        ﬁcers found $2,795 in cash, along with a .45-caliber Glock pistol
        with a 30-round magazine and laser-light attachment. Investiga-
        tion revealed that the Glock was manufactured in Austria and had
        been reported stolen on September 3, 2020. After these discoveries,
        Chandler continued to resist and the oﬃcers had to subdue him
        again. After subduing Chandler, the oﬃcers continued to search
        him, ﬁnding two rounds of ammunition.
              Chandler was then transported to the Lowndes County Jail
        in Valdosta, Georgia. During booking, a corrections oﬃcer
        searched Chandler and found 11.89 grams of methamphetamine.
        The local authorities charged Chandler with felony obstruction of
        an oﬃcer, possession of methamphetamine, possession of a ﬁre-
        arm by a convicted felon, possession of a ﬁrearm during the com-
        mission of certain felonies, theft by shoplifting, and battery.
               The PSR noted that, because Chandler possessed a ﬁrearm
        capable of accepting a large capacity magazine, and because Chan-
        dler was a prohibited person when he committed the instant of-
        fense, the base oﬀense level was 20, pursuant to U.S.S.G.
        § 2K2.1(a)(4)(B). The probation oﬃcer assessed a two-level in-
        crease under § 2K2.1(b)(4)(A) because the ﬁrearm Chandler pos-
        sessed was stolen, as well as a four-level increase under
        § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) because Chandler possessed the ﬁrearm in
USCA11 Case: 22-12620      Document: 23-1      Date Filed: 08/16/2023      Page: 4 of 13

        4                      Opinion of the Court                  22-12620

        connection with multiple felony oﬀenses, including possession of
        methamphetamine and obstruction of an oﬃcer. The PSR then
        applied a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility un-
        der § 3E1.1 because he pleaded guilty. Chandler’s total oﬀense level
        was reported at 23.
               Chandler’s past criminal history included previous convic-
        tions for theft by receiving stolen property, entering an automobile,
        and possession of a ﬁrearm by a convicted felon. Chandler’s crim-
        inal convictions resulted in a subtotal criminal history score of nine
        points. The PSR assessed a two-point increase pursuant to
        § 4A1.1(d) because Chandler committed the instant oﬀense while
        under a criminal justice sentence. Chandler’s total criminal history
        score was 11, which corresponded to a criminal history category of
        V.
               A total oﬀense level of 23 and a criminal history category of
        V correspond to a guideline imprisonment range of 84 to 105
        months for the ﬁrearm possession charge. The statutory maxi-
        mum term of imprisonment for possession of a ﬁrearm by a con-
        victed felon is ten years.
               Chandler objected to the four-level enhancement under
        U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) because (1) there was no evidence that
        Chandler possessed the methamphetamine with an intent to dis-
        tribute it as opposed to possessing it for personal use or (2) that the
        ﬁrearm facilitated, or had the potential to facilitate, the obstruction
        of the oﬃcer.
USCA11 Case: 22-12620      Document: 23-1      Date Filed: 08/16/2023     Page: 5 of 13

        22-12620               Opinion of the Court                         5

               At the sentencing hearing, Chandler again raised his objec-
        tion to the four-level enhancement. While acknowledging that he
        had a personal use quantity of methamphetamine, Chandler ar-
        gued that “mere proximity to the gun” was not enough. The same
        applied to the felony obstruction. Possession could not just be co-
        incidental—the possession of the ﬁrearm either had to facilitate the
        felony or have the potential to facilitate the felony.
               The Government argued that—with respect to the felony
        obstruction—Chandler had the gun on him when he obstructed
        the oﬃcers. There was an altercation between Chandler and the
        oﬃcers and he could have used the gun at any time. To support
        this argument, the Government called Oﬃcer Jones, one of the of-
        ﬁcers who responded to the department store and attempted to de-
        tain Chandler. Oﬃcer Jones testiﬁed that when he arrived, Chan-
        dler was behaving in an unruly manner and that both the initial
        oﬃcer on the scene and the loss prevention oﬃcer had wounds on
        them.
                According to Oﬃcer Jones, the ﬁrearm was in Chandler’s
        pants and Chandler was in possession of that ﬁrearm at the time
        he inﬂicted the injuries on the oﬃcers. Oﬃcer Jones further testi-
        ﬁed that Chandler “continually reached for his pockets” and that
        “the ﬁrearm was in that area.” The gun was not directly in Chan-
        dler’s pocket but was inside his pants; for the oﬃcers to retrieve the
        gun they had to unbuckle Chandler’s belt, unbutton his pants, and
        reach down his pant leg. Oﬃcer Jones testiﬁed that the gun was
        retrieved that way because “[w]hen you’re searching somebody,
USCA11 Case: 22-12620       Document: 23-1       Date Filed: 08/16/2023      Page: 6 of 13

        6                       Opinion of the Court                    22-12620

        you have to use care because you don’t know if they have needles
        or sharp objects.”
               Chandler reiterated that the Government had not presented
        suﬃcient evidence to support the enhancement and that the pos-
        session was coincidental—no testimony showed that he ever tried
        to get ahold of the gun, or that anyone on scene was even aware of
        it. The District Court overruled Chandler’s objection, ﬁnding that
        Chandler could have used the gun to facilitate the crime by a pre-
        ponderance of the evidence.
               After resolving the objections, the District Court moved to
        sentencing. The Government requested the guideline range maxi-
        mum of 105 months’ imprisonment to protect the public and deter
        Chandler from reoﬀending. Chandler’s attorney read a letter
        Chandler wrote, where Chandler discussed his struggles with drug
        addiction and mental health. He said he only had the ﬁrearm that
        day for protection. Chandler’s attorney then discussed Chandler’s
        mental health history with the Court, including his issues with
        ADHD, post-traumatic stress disorder, schizophrenia, and bipolar
        disorder, as well as Chandler’s extensive drug history.1 Chandler
        requested that the Court vary downward and impose a sentence of
        70 months.
               The District Court stated that it had considered the guide-
        line range, the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, and the facts

        1 Chandler also discussed this history in his sentencing memorandum, which

        was submitted to the Court.
USCA11 Case: 22-12620      Document: 23-1       Date Filed: 08/16/2023     Page: 7 of 13

        22-12620               Opinion of the Court                          7

        presented to the Court. It sentenced Chandler to 90 months’ im-
        prisonment, followed by three years of supervised release. Chan-
        dler objected “to the reasonableness of the sentence” and main-
        tained his objection to the four-level enhancement. He then timely
        appealed.
               On appeal, Chandler argues (1) that the District Court erred
        when it applied the four-level enhancement under § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B)
        and (2) that the District Court imposed a procedurally and substan-
        tively unreasonable sentence. We address each argument in turn.
                                          II.
               We review a district court’s legal interpretation de novo, and
        factual ﬁndings for clear error. United States v. Rothenberg, 610 F.3d
        621, 624 (11th Cir. 2010). A determination that a defendant pos-
        sessed a gun “in connection with” another felony is a factual ﬁnding
        that we review for clear error. United States v. Bishop, 940 F.3d 1242,
        1250 (11th Cir. 2019). To be clearly erroneous, the district court’s
        ﬁnding must leave this Court with a “deﬁnite and ﬁrm conviction
        that a mistake has been committed.” Rothenberg, 610 F.3d at 624.
               Under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B), a four-level enhancement is
        warranted if the defendant “used or possessed any ﬁrearm or am-
        munition in connection with another felony oﬀense.” U.S.S.G.
        § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). The commentary to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 explains that
        the enhancement applies if “the ﬁrearm or ammunition facilitated,
        or had the potential of facilitating, another felony oﬀense.” Id.,
        § 2K2.1, cmt. 14(A). Another felony oﬀense is generally classiﬁed
        as an oﬀense which is punishable by imprisonment of more than a
USCA11 Case: 22-12620         Document: 23-1        Date Filed: 08/16/2023        Page: 8 of 13

        8                         Opinion of the Court                      22-12620

        year regardless of whether it results in a conviction. § 2K2.1, cmt.
        14(C).
               The guidelines distinguish between drug traﬃcking oﬀenses
        and “another felony oﬀense” for purposes of applying the enhance-
        ment. Id. § 2K2.1, cmt. 14(A)–(C). For drug traﬃcking oﬀenses, a
        ﬁrearm in close proximity to the drugs warrants applying the en-
        hancement; for all other felonies, the court must ﬁnd that the ﬁre-
        arm facilitated or had the potential to facilitate another felony of-
        fense. Id. § 2K2.1, cmt. 14(B)–(C). The Government bears the bur-
        den of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, the facts nec-
        essary to support an enhancement. United States v. Askew, 193 F.3d
        1181, 1183 (11th Cir. 1999).
               In determining whether to apply the enhancement, the ﬁre-
        arm need not directly facilitate the underlying oﬀense for it to be
        possessed “in connection with” the oﬀense. United States v. Rhind,
        289 F.3d 690, 695 (11th Cir. 2002). But mere proximity between a
        ﬁrearm and drugs possessed for personal use cannot support the
        enhancement without a ﬁnding that the ﬁrearm facilitated, or had
        the potential to facilitate, the defendant’s drug possession. Bishop,
        940 F.3d at 1252. 2 Moreover, the term “in connection with” should
        be given its ordinary and natural meaning, and the ﬁrearm need
        not serve a purpose related to the crime. United States v. Smith, 480

        2 Though Chandler thoroughly argues the drug point, the District Court’s

        finding was that Chandler could have used the firearm to obstruct the officers.
        In finding that the enhancement applied, the Court did not rely on the posses-
        sion of methamphetamine.
USCA11 Case: 22-12620      Document: 23-1      Date Filed: 08/16/2023     Page: 9 of 13

        22-12620               Opinion of the Court                         9

        F.3d 1277, 1280 (11th Cir. 2007). Speciﬁcally, the phrase “in connec-
        tion with” “merely reﬂects the context of the defendant’s posses-
        sion of the ﬁrearm,” and is entitled to an expansive interpretation.
        Rhind, 289 F.3d at 695 (quotation marks and brackets omitted). Fur-
        ther, in certain circumstances, mere possession of a ﬁrearm meets
        the “in connection with” requirement. Smith, 480 F.3d at 1280
        (quoting United States v. Jackson, 276 F.3d 1231, 1234 (11th Cir.
        2001)).
                Here, the District Court did not err when it applied the four-
        level enhancement. The Court properly applied the requirements
        for “another felony oﬀense” by determining whether the ﬁrearm
        facilitated or had the potential to facilitate another felony—the ob-
        struction of the oﬃcers attempting to arrest Chandler. Although
        Chandler argues that the ﬁrearm was only in mere proximity to the
        felony and he did not attempt to use it, the record supports the Dis-
        trict Court’s determination that the ﬁrearm had the potential to
        facilitate the obstruction oﬀense. The ﬁrearm and magazine were
        found in Chandler’s pants, on his person during the struggle with
        oﬃcers, and oﬃcers made attempts to thwart him from reaching
        into his pockets. The District Court was entitled to expansively in-
        terpret Chandler’s possession of the ﬁrearm and its potential to be
        used in connection with the felony obstruction. See Rhind, 289 F.3d
        at 295.
               We cannot say we are left with a “deﬁnite and ﬁrm convic-
        tion” that the District Court erroneously found that the ﬁrearm in
        Chandler’s possession could have facilitated the felony. Rothenberg,
USCA11 Case: 22-12620      Document: 23-1       Date Filed: 08/16/2023    Page: 10 of 13

        10                     Opinion of the Court                  22-12620

        610 F.3d at 624. Thus, application of the enhancement was proper,
        and we aﬃrm in this respect.
                                         III.
               Turning to Chandler’s other argument on appeal, we review
        the reasonableness of a sentence under a deferential abuse of dis-
        cretion standard of review. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 128
        S. Ct. 586, 591 (2007) (holding that appellate courts review all sen-
        tences, whether inside or outside the guideline range, for abuse of
        discretion). When reviewing the reasonableness of a sentence, we
        conduct a two-step inquiry, ﬁrst ensuring that there was no signiﬁ-
        cant procedural error, and then examining whether the sentence
        was substantively reasonable. United States v. Sarras, 575 F.3d 1191,
        1219 (11th Cir. 2009).
                First, a district court commits a signiﬁcant procedural error
        if it calculates the guidelines incorrectly, fails to consider the
        § 3553(a) factors, bases the sentence on clearly erroneous facts, ne-
        glects to explain the sentence, or treats the guidelines as mandatory
        rather than advisory. United States v. Hill, 643 F.3d 807, 879 (11th
        Cir. 2011). The District Court must consider the § 3553(a) factors,
        but it need not state on the record that it has explicitly considered
        each of the factors or discuss each factor individually. United States
        v. Kuhlman, 711 F.3d 1321, 1326 (11th Cir. 2013). An acknowledg-
        ment by the court that it considered the § 3553(a) factors is suﬃ-
        cient. United States v. Turner, 474 F.3d 1265, 1281 (11th Cir. 2007).
               When explaining a sentence, the district court must “set
        forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that he has considered
USCA11 Case: 22-12620      Document: 23-1      Date Filed: 08/16/2023     Page: 11 of 13

        22-12620               Opinion of the Court                         11

        the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising his
        own legal decision-making authority.” Rita v. United States, 551 U.S.
        338, 356, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2468 (2007). Similarly, a sentence within
        the guidelines range does not necessarily require a lengthy expla-
        nation, and failure to discuss mitigating evidence does not indicate
        that the court “erroneously ‘ignored’ or failed to consider this evi-
        dence.” Id.; see also United States v. Amedeo, 487 F.3d 823, 833 (11th
        Cir. 2007).
                If the sentence is procedurally reasonable, we then examine
        whether it is substantively reasonable by considering the totality of
        the circumstances. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S. Ct. at 597. The dis-
        trict court must impose a sentence “suﬃcient, but not greater than
        necessary, to comply with the purposes” listed in § 3553(a)(2), in-
        cluding the need to reﬂect the seriousness of the oﬀense, promote
        respect for the law, provide just punishment for the oﬀense, deter
        criminal conduct, and protect the public from the defendant’s fu-
        ture criminal conduct. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2).
               The weight due each § 3553(a) factor lies within the district
        court’s sound discretion, and this Court will not substitute its judg-
        ment for that of the district court. United States v. Joseph, 978 F.3d
        1251, 1266 (11th Cir. 2020). Still, a district court abuses its discre-
        tion when it (1) fails to consider relevant factors that were due sig-
        niﬁcant weight, (2) gives signiﬁcant weight to an improper or irrel-
        evant factor, or (3) commits a clear error of judgment by balancing
        the proper factors unreasonably. Kuhlman, 711 F.3d at 1326–27.
USCA11 Case: 22-12620     Document: 23-1      Date Filed: 08/16/2023     Page: 12 of 13

        12                     Opinion of the Court                 22-12620

        Nevertheless, a district court may reasonably attach great weight
        to a single factor. Id. at 1327.
               Finally, a district court’s decision not to grant a downward
        variance alone does not demonstrate that the district court failed
        to aﬀord consideration to mitigating factors. United States v. Le-
        bowitz, 676 F.3d 1000, 1016 (11th Cir. 2012) (per curiam). An indi-
        cator of a reasonable sentence is one that is imposed at the bottom
        of the advisory guideline range and is substantially below the stat-
        utory maximum sentence. United States v. Carpenter, 803 F.3d 1224,
        1234 (11th Cir. 2015). The party challenging the sentence bears the
        burden of showing that the sentence is unreasonable considering
        the record, the § 3553(a) factors, and the substantial deference af-
        forded sentencing courts. United States v. Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d
        1249, 1256 (11th Cir. 2015).
                Here, Chandler fails to show the District Court abused its
        discretion when it imposed a sentence within and at the low end of
        his guideline range. First, his sentence is procedurally reasonable.
        As already discussed, the District Court correctly calculated the
        guideline range, including the four-level enhancement. The Dis-
        trict Court explicitly stated it considered the § 3553(a) factors, the
        advisory sentencing range, and made an individualized assessment
        based upon the facts presented at sentencing. Additionally, the Dis-
        trict Court reviewed the PSR, which included all relevant details of
        Chandler’s mitigation factors, and it heard Chandler and his coun-
        sel’s in-court statements related to his mitigating circumstances.
        Thus, his sentence was procedurally reasonable.
USCA11 Case: 22-12620      Document: 23-1      Date Filed: 08/16/2023     Page: 13 of 13

        22-12620               Opinion of the Court                         13

                Similarly, Chandler fails to show that the sentence is substan-
        tively unreasonable considering the record and the § 3553(a) fac-
        tors. The District Court reviewed evidence surrounding Chan-
        dler’s mitigating circumstances; the mere fact that the Court de-
        clined to vary downward does not show that it impermissibly over-
        looked that mitigating evidence. Further, Chandler’s 90-month
        sentence is near the bottom of the advisory guideline range of 84–
        105 months and was well below the statutory maximum sentence,
        indicating reasonableness. Accordingly, his sentence was substan-
        tively reasonable, and we aﬃrm in this respect as well.
               AFFIRMED.