Court Opinion

ID: 9825445
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 13:00:51.587579+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:31:24.663558
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12570    Document: 24-1      Date Filed: 09/01/2023   Page: 1 of 11

                                                    [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                           ____________________

                                 No. 22-12570
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                           ____________________

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                       Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
        versus
        TAVARIS DEON BROWN,

                                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                           ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of Alabama
                   D.C. Docket No. 7:21-cr-00412-LSC-GMB-1
                           ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-12570      Document: 24-1      Date Filed: 09/01/2023     Page: 2 of 11

        2                      Opinion of the Court                 22-12570

        Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.
        PER CURIAM:
               Tavaris Deon Brown appeals the 120-month sentence im-
        posed after he pled guilty to possessing ammunition as a felon. On
        appeal, Brown argues that his sentence was unreasonable. After
        careful consideration, we affirm.
                                          I.
                This case arises out of an incident when Brown fired a gun
        multiple times at a moving vehicle. In April 2021, Tuscaloosa police
        received a report of gunshots at an apartment complex. When of-
        ficers arrived on the scene, they found six shell casings in a parking
        lot. Several witnesses at the scene identified Brown as the shooter.
                As part of their investigation, law enforcement obtained sur-
        veillance video from the apartment complex. The surveillance
        video showed a Chevrolet Tahoe arrive at the complex and park in
        front of one of the apartment buildings. After the Tahoe arrived,
        Brown exited a nearby apartment building, walked across the park-
        ing lot, and tried to speak to two women (later identified as his ex-
        girlfriend and her mother). The women ignored Brown, entered a
        sedan parked next to the Tahoe, and drove away; the Tahoe fol-
        lowed. As the Tahoe drove past Brown, he reached into his waist-
        band and pulled out a gun. He shot at the Tahoe several times.
               A grand jury returned an indictment charging Brown with
        being a felon in possession of ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
USCA11 Case: 22-12570         Document: 24-1        Date Filed: 09/01/2023   Page: 3 of 11

        22-12570                  Opinion of the Court                         3

        § 922(g)(1). He pled guilty. In the plea agreement, the government
        agreed to recommend a sentence within the applicable guidelines
        range, but the plea agreement noted that this recommendation was
        not binding on the court.
               Prior to the sentencing hearing, the probation office pre-
        pared a presentence investigation report (“PSR”). The PSR de-
        scribed the facts of the offense. It also discussed Brown’s personal
        history, including that he grew up in housing projects where he
        was exposed to violence, guns, and drugs at a young age.
               The PSR also recounted Brown’s criminal history. In 2010,
        when Brown was 19 years old, he pled guilty to four counts of first-
        degree robbery in Alabama. These convictions arose out of a single
        incident when Brown, along with two other men, forced their way
        into an apartment. During the invasion, Brown “pulled a pistol” on
        one of the victims. Doc. 15 at 11. 1 He and the two other men stole
        clothing, money, and cellular phones from the victims. They also
        “patted down” two female victims, placing “their hands on the vic-
        tims’ breasts, buttocks, and in their crotch areas.” Id. (internal quo-
        tation marks omitted). For each count, Brown received a sentence
        of “15 years custody, split to serve 3 years” as well as five years of
        probation. Id. at 10. After spending three years in custody, Brown
        began to serve his term of probation.
              About two years into his term of probation, Brown was in-
        volved in another incident with a firearm. According to the PSR,

        1 “Doc.” numbers refer to the district court’s docket entries.
USCA11 Case: 22-12570      Document: 24-1     Date Filed: 09/01/2023     Page: 4 of 11

        4                      Opinion of the Court                22-12570

        Brown intended to cause the death of a victim “by shooting him in
        the back of the head and/or shooting in his direction several
        times.” Id. at 17. Brown was initially charged with attempted mur-
        der in Alabama state court but later pled guilty to second-degree
        assault. He was sentenced to 15 years in custody. In January 2021,
        after completing approximately five years of the sentence, Brown
        was released from prison.
                About three months after being released from prison,
        Brown shot at the Tahoe. At the time of the shooting, Brown was
        still on probation for the robbery offenses.
               The PSR also noted that Brown had probation revocation
        proceedings pending in Alabama state court. A few weeks after
        Brown shot at the Tahoe, officers received a report of a domestic
        dispute at the same apartment complex. At the apartment com-
        plex, officers found Brown sitting in a chair in the parking lot with
        his feet propped up on a vehicle that did not belong to him and
        threatening other residents. The officers arrested Brown and
        charged him with disorderly conduct. As a result of this incident,
        Brown also was charged in Alabama state court with violating the
        terms of his probation. At the time of his sentencing in federal
        court, the state court had not yet imposed a sentence for Brown’s
        probation violation.
               The PSR also calculated Brown’s guidelines range. It as-
        signed Brown a base offense level of 20 because he committed the
        offense of being a felon in possession of ammunition and had a
        prior felony conviction for a crime of violence (Alabama robbery).
USCA11 Case: 22-12570      Document: 24-1      Date Filed: 09/01/2023      Page: 5 of 11

        22-12570               Opinion of the Court                          5

        See U.S. Sent’g Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) (assigning base
        offense level of 20 for the unlawful possession of a firearm or am-
        munition when “the defendant committed any part of the instant
        offense subsequent to sustaining one felony conviction of either a
        crime of violence or a controlled substance offense”).
               The PSR also applied a four-level enhancement because
        Brown possessed ammunition in connection with another felony
        offense. See id. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). The PSR reported that Brown had
        committed a felony when he shot into the occupied Tahoe. After
        applying a reduction for acceptance of responsibility, see id. § 3E1.1,
        the PSR calculated Brown’s total offense level as 21.
               Based on this total offense level and Brown’s criminal his-
        tory category of V, the PSR calculated his guidelines range as 70 to
        87 months’ imprisonment. It reported that the applicable statutory
        maximum was 10 years’ imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2).
               At the sentencing hearing, there were no objections to the
        PSR, and the district court adopted its factual statements as well as
        its guidelines calculations. The court then advised the parties that
        it was “greatly concerned” about the case. Doc. 27 at 3. Based on
        Brown’s prior convictions and his conduct in this case, the court
        stated that it appeared that Brown did not “hesitate” to “us[e] a fire-
        arm and shoot[] at people.” Id. at 5. The court stated that the case
        “scream[ed] out for” a statutory maximum sentence. Id. at 4–5.
              The court then gave the parties the opportunity to present
        evidence. The government called one witness, Susan Curvin, the
        Tuscaloosa police officer who investigated the shooting at the
USCA11 Case: 22-12570         Document: 24-1         Date Filed: 09/01/2023         Page: 6 of 11

        6                          Opinion of the Court                       22-12570

        apartment complex. She described her investigation of the shoot-
        ing. She explained that Brown did not end up facing any state
        charges arising out of the shooting because the owner of the Tahoe
        would not speak with police. During her testimony, the court ad-
        mitted into evidence the surveillance video that showed Brown
        shooting at the Tahoe. Brown did not call any witnesses.
               Brown urged the court to impose a sentence within the
        guidelines range. He asked the court to consider that he had grown
        up in a violent neighborhood. He acknowledged that the circum-
        stances of his upbringing did not excuse his conduct but argued that
        they weighed against a statutory maximum sentence. Brown also
        pointed out that he had accepted responsibility for being a felon in
        possession of ammunition. Like Brown, the government asked the
        court to impose a sentence within the guidelines range.
              Ultimately, the district court decided to vary upward from
        Brown’s guidelines range and imposed the statutory-maximum
        sentence of 120 months. In imposing the sentence, the court relied
        on several of the applicable sentencing factors from 18 U.S.C.
        § 3553(a), 2 including Brown’s history and characteristics, the

        2 Under § 3553(a), a district court is required to impose a sentence “sufficient,
        but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes” of the statute.
        18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). These purposes include the need to: reflect the seriousness
        of the offense; promote respect for the law; provide just punishment; deter
        criminal conduct; protect the public from the defendant’s future criminal con-
        duct; and effectively provide the defendant with educational or vocational
        training, medical care, or other correctional treatment. Id. § 3553(a)(2). The
USCA11 Case: 22-12570         Document: 24-1        Date Filed: 09/01/2023         Page: 7 of 11

        22-12570                  Opinion of the Court                                7

        nature and circumstances of the offense, the seriousness of the of-
        fense, the need to afford adequate deterrence, and the need to pro-
        tect the public from future crimes.
               The court explained that Brown’s conduct involved shoot-
        ing into the Tahoe and noted that he could have killed the driver
        of the vehicle or bystanders. It also recounted his criminal history.
        The court discussed how Brown previously had robbed multiple
        victims while carrying a firearm. The court noted that during this
        crime, Brown had “physically assaulted” and “probably sexually as-
        sault[ed]” two female victims. Id. at 27. The court also observed
        that Brown received a “light sentence” for the robbery because he
        was required to serve only three years in custody. Id. at 28.
                The court also reviewed the incident when Brown pled
        guilty to assault in the second degree. It explained that in this inci-
        dent Brown had shot in the victim’s direction. The court again
        noted that Brown did not spend “very much time in custody” for
        this offense. Id at 29.
              The court focused on the similarity between the most recent
        shooting and Brown’s prior offenses because in all three incidents
        Brown used a firearm. And the court compared the most recent
        shooting to the assault case because on both occasions Brown shot

        court must also consider the nature and circumstances of the offense, the his-
        tory and characteristics of the defendant, the kinds of sentences available, the
        applicable guidelines range, the pertinent policy statements of the Sentencing
        Commission, the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities, and the
        need to provide restitution to victims. Id. § 3553(a)(1), (3)-(7).
USCA11 Case: 22-12570       Document: 24-1       Date Filed: 09/01/2023     Page: 8 of 11

        8                       Opinion of the Court                  22-12570

        a firearm in the direction of another person. Given that Brown’s
        previous sentences had not deterred him, the court stated that a
        lengthy prison sentence was needed before Brown killed or seri-
        ously hurt someone. According to the court, Brown “deserve[d]
        significantly more time” than 120 months’ imprisonment, but the
        court was bound by the statutory maximum. Id.
               Brown asked the court to direct that his sentence would run
        concurrent to any sentence imposed in Alabama state court in con-
        nection with his probation revocation. The court refused to do so,
        saying Brown would not “get any credit for the other sentence
        against this sentence.” Id. at 32.
               This is Brown’s appeal.
                                          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).
                                          III.
               On appeal, Brown challenges his 120-month sentence,
        which involved an upward variance, as substantively unreasona-
        ble. But we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion
        in imposing this sentence.
               When reviewing for substantive reasonableness, we ordi-
        narily will vacate a sentence “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) factors by arriving at a
USCA11 Case: 22-12570       Document: 24-1       Date Filed: 09/01/2023      Page: 9 of 11

        22-12570                Opinion of the Court                           9

        sentence that lies outside the range of reasonable sentences dic-
        tated by the facts of the case.” United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160,
        1190 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted).
        “The weight given to any specific § 3553(a) factor is committed to
        the sound discretion of the district court.” United States v. Croteau,
        819 F.3d 1293, 1309 (11th Cir. 2016).
               In addition, a “district court has considerable discretion in
        deciding whether the § 3553(a) factors justify a variance and the
        extent of the variance.” Id. When the sentence imposed involves
        an upward variance, we “may not apply a presumption of unrea-
        sonableness” and “must give due deference to the district court’s
        decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify the extent of
        the variance.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. In addition, the “fact that [we]
        might reasonably have concluded that a different sentence was ap-
        propriate is insufficient to justify reversal of the district court.” Id.
               After considering the record, we are not left with a definite
        and firm conviction that the district court committed an error of
        judgment when it decided to vary upward and impose a 120-month
        sentence. At the sentencing hearing, the district court carefully con-
        sidered the applicable § 3553(a) factors. It discussed in detail
        Brown’s history and characteristics, including his earlier criminal
        convictions, as well as the nature and circumstance of his current
        offense when he shot at the Tahoe. The district court also con-
        cluded that an upward variance was needed to reflect the serious-
        ness of the offense, to afford adequate deterrence, and to protect
        the public. As the court observed, Brown had previously
USCA11 Case: 22-12570      Document: 24-1      Date Filed: 09/01/2023     Page: 10 of 11

        10                     Opinion of the Court                  22-12570

        committed other crimes involving firearms and received relatively
        light sentences. Because those punishments had not deterred
        Brown, the district court concluded that a longer sentence was nec-
        essary. On this record, the district court’s 120-month sentence was
        not unreasonable. See United States v. Shaw, 560 F.3d 1230, 1241
        (11th Cir. 2009) (affirming an 83-month upward variance in felon-
        in-possession case when the defendant had previously committed
        other firearms-related offenses and received shorter sentences that
        had not deterred him from engaging in future criminal conduct).
                Brown nevertheless argues that his sentence was unreason-
        able because the district court’s decision to impose an upward var-
        iance was based on “two main factors—the nature of the instant
        offense and [his] criminal history,” which were “already accounted
        for in [his] guidelines range.” Appellant’s Br. at 12–13. But the dis-
        trict court was permitted to look to the nature and circumstances
        of the offense along with Brown’s criminal history when imposing
        an upward variance, even if it relied on similar considerations in
        calculating his guidelines range. See United States v. Amedeo, 487 F.3d
        823, 834 (11th Cir. 2007) (affirming sentence that involved an up-
        ward variance because it was “reasonable for the district court to
        rely on certain aspects of [the defendant’s] conduct . . . that it had
        already considered in imposing an enhancement”).
               In addition, Brown argues that the district court should have
        given greater weight to mitigating factors, including his difficult
        upbringing and his acceptance of responsibility. But a district court
        retains discretion to determine how much weight to assign to any
USCA11 Case: 22-12570     Document: 24-1     Date Filed: 09/01/2023   Page: 11 of 11

        22-12570              Opinion of the Court                      11

        particular § 3553(a) factor. See Croteau, 819 F.3d at 1309. Because
        the district court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.
              AFFIRMED.