Court Opinion

ID: 9950601
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-14 16:00:52.323764+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:36:08.294906
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-11894    Document: 41-1     Date Filed: 03/14/2024   Page: 1 of 5

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-11894
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       CHRISTOPHER JON BAUER,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                   D.C. Docket No. 2:22-cr-14068-AMC-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-11894      Document: 41-1     Date Filed: 03/14/2024     Page: 2 of 5

       2                      Opinion of the Court                 23-11894

       Before NEWSOM, GRANT, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              After pleading guilty to two counts of possession with intent
       to distribute controlled substances—specifically, fentanyl and
       methamphetamine—Christopher Jon Bauer was sentenced to 180-
       months’ imprisonment, an upward variance from the Guidelines
       range of 130 to 162 months. He appeals, arguing that his sentence
       is both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. Finding no
       error, we affirm.
                                         I.
              Procedurally, Bauer argues that the district court erred on
       three fronts. First, he claims that the court miscalculated his
       Guidelines range by declining to apply a two-level decrease to his
       oﬀense level based on an amendment to the Guidelines that had
       not yet taken eﬀect. Bauer’s sentencing hearing occurred on May
       22, 2023. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 2D1.1(b)(18) applies a two-
       level decrease to a defendant’s oﬀense level if he meets the “safety-
       valve” criteria listed in U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a)(1)–(5). On May 3, before
       Bauer’s sentencing hearing, the Sentencing Commission
       promulgated an amendment to § 5C1.2(a)(1) to align its language
       with the amendments made to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f )(1) by the First
       Step Act of 2018. See 88 Fed. Reg. 28254, 28264 (May 3, 2023).
       However, the § 5C1.2(a)(1) amendment did not take eﬀect until
       November 1, after Bauer’s sentencing. See 88 Fed. Reg. at 28254.
USCA11 Case: 23-11894      Document: 41-1     Date Filed: 03/14/2024     Page: 3 of 5

       23-11894               Opinion of the Court                         3

              Bauer argues that he was eligible for a two-level decrease
       because he meets the post-amendment criteria in U.S.S.G.
       § 5C1.2(a)(1)–(5). However, he did not satisfy the pre-amendment
       version of § 5C1.2(a)(1), and substantive amendments to the
       Guidelines do not apply retroactively. United States v. Jerchower, 631
       F.3d 1181, 1184 (11th Cir. 2011). The district court recognized as
       much, and appropriately excluded the § 2D1.1(b)(18) two-level
       decrease when calculating Bauer’s Guidelines range. The court did
       not err by declining to apply an amendment to the Guidelines that
       had not yet taken eﬀect.
              Second, Bauer argues that the district court erred by refusing
       to consider Bauer’s acceptance of responsibility as a mitigating
       factor. This is simply incorrect as a descriptive matter. When
       calculating Bauer’s Guidelines range, the court applied a three-level
       decrease to Bauer’s oﬀense level for acceptance of responsibility
       under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a), (b). It also speciﬁcally stated at the
       sentencing hearing, “I do appreciate your acceptance of
       responsibility.” The court thus did consider Bauer’s acceptance of
       responsibility.
              Third, Bauer argues that the district court erred by failing to
       explain why an upward variance from the Guidelines range was
       justiﬁed. A court that departs from the applicable Guidelines range
       “must state the speciﬁc reasons for its departure” in enough detail
       “so that an appellate court can engage in the meaningful review
       envisioned by the Sentencing Guidelines.” United States v. Suarez,
       939 F.2d 929, 933 (11th Cir. 1991); see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2). The
USCA11 Case: 23-11894      Document: 41-1     Date Filed: 03/14/2024     Page: 4 of 5

       4                      Opinion of the Court                 23-11894

       district court here carefully explained how its upward variance
       rested on several factors, including Bauer’s central role in a
       fentanyl-dealing conspiracy, his reckless, high-speed ﬂight from law
       enforcement, his lengthy and violent criminal history, the need for
       more deterrence than the Guidelines range provided, and the
       exceptionally deadly nature of fentanyl. This satisﬁed the court’s
       burden of explanation under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2).
                                        II.
               Bauer also argues that his 180-month sentence is
       substantively unreasonable.          We review the substantive
       reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of discretion. United States
       v. Oudomsine, 57 F.4th 1262, 1266 (11th Cir. 2023). A court abuses
       its discretion when it “(1) fails to aﬀord consideration to relevant
       factors that were due signiﬁcant weight, (2) gives signiﬁcant weight
       to an improper or irrelevant factor, or (3) commits a clear error of
       judgment in considering the proper factors.” Id. (quotation
       omitted).
              Bauer argues that the court erred by imposing a variance
       that relied, in part, on sentencing factors already taken into account
       by his advisory Guidelines range. But the “district court may
       consider facts that were taken into account when formulating the
       guideline range for the sake of a variance.” United States v.
       Dougherty, 754 F.3d 1353, 1362 (11th Cir. 2014).
               And to the extent Bauer argues that the district court abused
       its discretion by giving too little consideration to the Guidelines
       range, we do not find that the court’s sentence was unreasonable
USCA11 Case: 23-11894      Document: 41-1      Date Filed: 03/14/2024     Page: 5 of 5

       23-11894               Opinion of the Court                          5

       in light of the countervailing factors previously described. So long
       as the record reflects that the court considered all the 18 U.S.C.
       § 3553(a) factors, the “weight accorded to each factor” lies within
       “the sound discretion of the district court.” United States v. Ramirez-
       Gonzalez, 755 F.3d 1267, 1272 (11th Cir. 2014) (quotation omitted).
       Considering Bauer’s criminal history, the severe nature of his drug
       crimes, and his flight from police, we cannot say that the district
       court abused its discretion by finding that a modest upward
       variance from the Guidelines range was warranted.
                                  *      *       *
              AFFIRMED.