United States v. Maxwell George Franklyn , 429 F. App'x 878 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                                                                    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    ________________________            FILED
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    No. 10-15261         ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    Non-Argument Calendar        JUNE 9, 2011
    ________________________        JOHN LEY
    CLERK
    D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cr-20575-CMA-1
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll                              Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    MAXWELL GEORGE FRANKLYN,
    a.k.a. Cashmore Forrester,
    a.k.a. Terry Lee Taylor,
    llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll                            Defendant-Appellant.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Florida
    ________________________
    (June 9, 2011)
    Before TJOFLAT, EDMONDSON and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    After Maxwell George Franklyn pled guilty to illegal re-entry by a convicted
    felon, in violation of 
    8 U.S.C. § 1326
    (a) and (b)(2), the district court sentenced him
    to a prison term of 70 months, a sentence at the low end of the Guidelines
    sentencing range. He now appeals the sentence, raising two issues: (1) whether the
    district court’s statement at the sentencing hearing that the applicable Guidelines
    sentencing range was “presumptively reasonable” constitutes procedural error, and
    (2) whether the district court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence by
    failing to afford adequate weight to his personal history and characteristics.
    Franklyn did not object to the district court’s statement that the applicable
    Guidelines sentencing range is presumptively reasonable. Thus, to prevail on that
    issue, he must show that the court (1) erred; (2) the error was plain; and (3) it
    affected his substantial rights. United States v. Bacon, 
    598 F.3d 772
    , 777 (11th Cir.
    2010). If these elements are present, we may exercise our discretion to vacate the
    district court’s judgment and remand the case for further proceedings if “the error
    seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial
    proceedings.” 
    Id.
     (quotation omitted). We resolve the first issue against Franklyn,
    because the error did not affect Franklyn’s substantial rights, and turn to the second
    issue, whether his sentence is substantively reasonable.
    2
    A sentence is substantively unreasonable if it “fails to achieve the purposes
    of sentencing as stated in [18 U.S.C. §] 3553(a).” United States v. Talley, 
    431 F.3d 784
    , 788 (11th Cir. 2005). Pursuant to § 3553(a), the sentencing court must impose
    a sentence “sufficient, but not greater than necessary,” to reflect the seriousness of
    the offense, promote respect for the law, provide just punishment for the offense,
    deter criminal conduct, protect the public from future criminal conduct by the
    defendant, and provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational
    training or medical care. 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a)(2). The court must also consider the
    nature and circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the
    defendant, the kinds of sentences available, the applicable Guidelines sentencing
    range, the pertinent policy statements of the Sentencing Commission, the need to
    avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities, and the need to provide restitution to
    victims. 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a)(1), (3)-(7).
    A district court abuses its discretion when it balances the § 3553(a) factors
    unreasonably or places unreasonable weight on a single factor. United States v.
    Irey, 
    612 F.3d 1160
    , 1192-93 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc), cert. denied, (U.S. Apr. 4,
    2010) (No. 10-727). We will remand for resentencing when “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
    3
    of reasonable sentences dictated by the facts of the case.” United States v. Pugh,
    
    515 F.3d 1179
    , 1191 (11th Cir. 2008) (quotation omitted).
    We find nothing in this record to indicate that the district court failed to
    comply with these sentencing principles and objectives. Franklyn’s sentence is
    therefore substantively reasonable.
    AFFIRMED.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-15261

Citation Numbers: 429 F. App'x 878

Judges: Edmondson, Kravitch, Per Curiam, Tjoflat

Filed Date: 6/9/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/3/2023