Case: 17-12708 Date Filed: 08/10/2018 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-12708
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cr-20613-JLK-2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
VLADIMIR LOUISSANT,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(August 10, 2018)
Before WILSON, MARTIN, and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 17-12708 Date Filed: 08/10/2018 Page: 2 of 6
Vladimir Louissant appeals his 50-year sentence, imposed after he pled
guilty to possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence resulting in
death. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1111, 924(c)(1)(A), 924(j)(1); 2. Louissant raises three
issues on appeal. First, he argues that the district court failed to state its reasons
for imposing a sentence at a particular point within the advisory guideline range.
Second, he argues that the district court committed a significant procedural error
by basing his sentence on a clearly erroneous fact. Third, he argues that his
sentence was substantively unreasonable because the court focused solely on his
role in the crime and failed to consider other mitigating factors. After careful
consideration of the briefs and the record, we affirm.
I.
We review de novo the sufficiency of the district court’s explanation under
18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(1), even if the defendant did not object below. United States
v. Bonilla,
463 F.3d 1176, 1181 (11th Cir. 2006).
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(1), a sentencing court must “state in open court
the reasons for its imposition of the particular sentence, and, if the sentence . . . is
of the kind, and within the range [recommended by the Guidelines,] and that range
exceeds 24 months, the reason for imposing a sentence at a particular point within
the range.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(1). To comply with § 3553(c)(1), the court
should tailor its reasoning to show that the sentence imposed is appropriate in light
2
Case: 17-12708 Date Filed: 08/10/2018 Page: 3 of 6
of the § 3553(a) factors. United States v. Veteto,
920 F.2d 823, 826 (11th Cir.
1991).
The district court did not err under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(1). The court
conducted a thorough sentencing hearing, stated that the sentence imposed was
consistent with the purposes of sentencing and the § 3553(a) factors, and explained
why Louissant’s role in the underlying crime distinguished him from the other co-
defendants. Specifically, the district court found that Louissant was more culpable
than the co-defendants because he “shot and killed a young man taking his life by
his own action and his own intent.” The district court heard extensive arguments
from the parties and gave due consideration to the presentence investigation report
(PSI) calculations in making its determination. We find that the district court
fulfilled its obligations under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(1) to describe the specific
reasons for Louissant’s guideline sentence.
II.
We review the procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence for
abuse of discretion. United States v. Tome,
611 F.3d 1371, 1378 (11th Cir. 2010).
However, when a defendant fails to raise a procedural reasonableness argument
before the district court, we review only for plain error. United States v. Johnson,
694 F.3d 1192, 1195 (11th Cir. 2012). Plain error occurs where (1) there is an
error; (2) the error is plain or obvious; (3) the error affected the defendant’s
3
Case: 17-12708 Date Filed: 08/10/2018 Page: 4 of 6
substantial rights in that it was prejudicial and not harmless; and (4) the error
seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of the judicial
proceedings.
Id. “In order for an error to be obvious for purposes of plain error
review, it must be plain under controlling precedent or in view of the
unequivocally clear words of a statute or rule.”
Id.
A sentence is procedurally unreasonable if the district court miscalculated
the guideline range, treated the Sentencing Guidelines as mandatory, failed to
consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, based the sentence on clearly erroneous
facts, or failed to adequately explain the sentence. United States v. Trailer,
827
F.3d 933, 936 (11th Cir. 2016) (per curiam).
Although the government concedes that the district court clearly erred in
finding that no other codefendant was convicted of the same crime, the error was
not plain. The district court repeatedly emphasized why it reached the conclusion
that Louissant was not similarly situated with, and was more culpable than, his
codefendants: because he was the one who shot and killed the Brinks courier
during the robbery. The record demonstrates that the district court’s error
regarding whether a codefendant was convicted of the same crime did not affect
Louissant’s substantial rights in receiving his 50-year sentence, and, accordingly,
was not plain error.
4
Case: 17-12708 Date Filed: 08/10/2018 Page: 5 of 6
III.
We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for an abuse of
discretion in light of the totality of the circumstances and the § 3553(a) factors.
Trailer, 827 F.3d at 935–36. The § 3553(a) factors include the nature and
circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant, the
kinds of sentences available, the advisory guideline range, pertinent policy
statements issued by the Sentencing Commission, and the need to avoid
unwarranted sentence disparities. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The weight given to each
§ 3553(a) factor is committed to the sound discretion of the district court, and we
will not substitute our judgment in weighing the relevant factors. United States v.
Amedeo,
487 F.3d 823, 832 (11th Cir. 2007). Nevertheless, a court abuses its
discretion if it (1) fails to consider relevant factors that were due significant
weight; (2) gives an improper or irrelevant factor significant weight; or (3)
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). Under the
abuse-of-discretion standard, we will reverse 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 sentence that lies outside the range
of reasonable sentences dictated by the facts of the case.”
Id. at 1190. We
5
Case: 17-12708 Date Filed: 08/10/2018 Page: 6 of 6
ordinarily expect that a sentence within the guideline range is reasonable. United
States v. Nagel,
835 F.3d 1371, 1377 (11th Cir. 2016).
Here, the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable
sentence. The 50-year sentence was within the guideline range and the record
shows that the district court gave thorough consideration to multiple § 3553(a)
factors—including the purposes of sentencing, Louissant’s history and
characteristics, the nature and circumstances of the offense, the guideline range,
and the need to avoid sentencing disparities. Furthermore, the district court was
entitled to give significant weight to the nature and circumstances of Louissant’s
offense, especially in light of his co-defendants’ sentences. We are not “left with
the definite and firm conviction that the district court committed a clear error of
judgment in weighing the § 3553(a) factors” when it sentenced Louissant to fifty
years in prison.
Irey, 612 F.3d at 1190. Accordingly, we affirm his sentence as
substantively reasonable.
AFFIRMED.
6
