USCA11 Case: 23-10190 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 12/20/2023 Page: 1 of 7
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-10190
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DELON JOSEPH ADAMS,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 8:20-cr-00326-VMC-MRM-1
____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-10190 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 12/20/2023 Page: 2 of 7
2 Opinion of the Court 23-10190
Before NEWSOM, ANDERSON, and HULL, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM:
In 2020, defendant Delon Adams robbed four different cell
phone stores on four different days. During each robbery, Adams
brandished a firearm at store employees.
A jury convicted Adams of eleven offenses, including four
counts of Hobbs Act robbery and four counts (Counts 2, 4, 6, and
8) of brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence, in violation
of
18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). Because Adams had a prior § 924(c)
firearm conviction in 2002, the mandatory minimum for each
§ 924(c) conviction was 25 years. See
18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(C)(i).
At sentencing, the district court, over Adams’s objection,
concluded that § 924(c) required that Adams’s four 25-year
sentences be served consecutive to each other and to any other
sentence. As a consequence, the district court imposed 121-month
prison terms on Counts 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11 and a 6-month term on
Count 10, all to be served concurrently, followed by four
consecutive 300-month (25 year) terms on Counts 2, 4, 6, and 8, for
a total sentence of 110 years and one month.
On appeal, Adams does not challenge his eleven convictions.
Adams also does not challenge his sentences on Counts 1, 3, 5, 7, 9,
10 and 11. Adams argues only that his 25-year consecutive
sentences on Counts 2, 4, 6, and 8 are procedurally unreasonable.
USCA11 Case: 23-10190 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 12/20/2023 Page: 3 of 7
23-10190 Opinion of the Court 3
Specifically, Adams contends that the district court
procedurally erred when it determined § 924(c) mandated
consecutive sentences and that the text of § 924(c) permits partially
concurrent sentences. And, because the statutory mandatory
minimum sentence for his § 924(c) offenses governs his Guidelines
sentence, Adams claims the district court also miscalculated his
advisory guidelines range. After review, we find no merit to
Adams’s arguments and affirm his consecutive § 924(c) sentences
on Counts 2, 4, 6, and 8.
I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
When reviewing a sentence for reasonableness, we first must
ensure the district court committed no significant procedural error,
such as failing to properly calculate the advisory guidelines range.
Gall v. United States,
552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). “We normally review
the procedural reasonableness of a sentence under an abuse-of-
discretion standard.” United States v. Waters,
937 F.3d 1344, 1358
(11th Cir. 2019). 1 We review questions of statutory interpretation
de novo. United States v. Segarra,
582 F.3d 1269, 1271 (11th Cir. 2009).
Under § 924(c), a defendant who previously was convicted
of a § 924(c) firearm offense must “be sentenced to a term of
1 The parties dispute whether Adams’s objection to his consecutive sentences
in the district court—that the four § 924(c) offenses were part of one criminal
episode—preserved the issue he now raises on appeal and thus whether our
review is for plain error. We need not resolve this question because the district
court did not commit any procedural error, and therefore Adams cannot
prevail under either standard of review.
USCA11 Case: 23-10190 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 12/20/2023 Page: 4 of 7
4 Opinion of the Court 23-10190
imprisonment of not less than 25 years.”
18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(C)(i).
Additionally, “no term of imprisonment imposed on a person
under [§ 924(c)] shall run concurrently with any other term of
imprisonment imposed on the person . . . .” Id. § 924(c)(1)(D)(ii).
In turn, under the Sentencing Guidelines, a § 924(c) defendant’s
“guideline sentence is the minimum term of imprisonment
required by statute.” U.S.S.G. § 2K2.4(b).
This Court has held that the plain language of
§ 924(c)(1)(D)(ii) requires sentences for multiple § 924(c) firearm
offenses to be run consecutively to each other. See United States v.
Wright,
33 F.3d 1349, 1350 (11th Cir. 1994). In Wright, the defendant
was convicted of four counts of armed bank robbery and four
counts of using a firearm during a crime of violence, in violation
of § 924(c)(1). Id. at 1349. The sentencing court imposed
concurrent 70-month sentences for Wright’s bank robbery
convictions and four separate 240-month terms for his § 924(c)
firearm convictions, to run consecutively to each other and to his
concurrent 70-month sentences, for a total sentence of 1030
months, or about 86 years. Id. at 1349.
On appeal, Wright argued that § 924(c) required his
sentences to run consecutively to his bank robbery sentences but
did not require them to run consecutively to each other. Id.
at 1349-50. Wright specifically argued that the word “other” in
§ 924(c)(1) meant “that the term of imprisonment cannot run
concurrently with any term of imprisonment ‘other than’ a term
of imprisonment under section 924(c).” Id. at 1350. This Court
USCA11 Case: 23-10190 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 12/20/2023 Page: 5 of 7
23-10190 Opinion of the Court 5
rejected Wright’s argument, stating, “The plain language of the
statute expressly states that a term of imprisonment imposed under
section 924(c) cannot run concurrently with any other term of
imprisonment, period. No exceptions are provided.” Id. (emphasis
in original). This Court affirmed Wright’s total sentence
“[b]ecause the plain language of [§ 924(c)] requires consecutive
sentences.” Id. at 1350-51 (emphasis added).
II. ADAMS’S CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES
Here, Adams argues that the text of § 924(c)(1)(D)(ii) does
not require § 924(c) sentences to run consecutively and its
prohibition against concurrent sentences does not extend to
partially concurrent sentences. Adams’s argument that the plain
language of § 924(c)(1)(D)(ii) does not require consecutive
sentences is foreclosed by our Wright precedent. Although the
Court in Wright was focused on the meaning of the word “other”
in § 924(c) to determine whether the statute required multiple
sentences under § 924(c) to run consecutively to each other, our
Court ultimately concluded that “the plain language of the statute
requires consecutive sentences.” Id. at 1350. The Court’s
reasoning and holding in Wright indicate that § 924(c)’s bar on
imposing concurrent § 924(c) sentences also means those sentences
must run consecutively. See id.
Adams cites Dean v. United States,
581 U.S. 62 (2017), but Dean
has no bearing on the consecutive-sentence issue raised here. In
Dean, the defendant was sentenced for two § 924(c) convictions and
two robbery convictions that also served as predicates for the
USCA11 Case: 23-10190 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 12/20/2023 Page: 6 of 7
6 Opinion of the Court 23-10190
§ 924(c) counts. 581 U.S. at 65. The issue in Dean was “whether, in
calculating the sentence for the predicate [robbery] offense, a judge
must ignore the fact that the defendant will serve the mandatory
minimums imposed under § 924(c).” Id. at 64 (emphasis added).
The Supreme Court concluded that nothing in §924(c) or
18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) prevented the sentencing court from considering the
lengthy mandatory minimum sentence required by § 924(c) “when
calculating a just sentence for the predicate count.” Id. at 67-71
(emphasis added).
In short, Dean was concerned with the district court’s
discretion in imposing sentences for robbery counts other than the
§ 924(c) firearm counts. Nothing in Dean suggests a district court
can impose partially concurrent sentences for multiple § 924(c)
convictions. To the contrary, the Supreme Court acknowledged in
Dean that the defendant faced a 30-year mandatory minimum
sentence for his two § 924(c) counts—five years for the first count
and 25 years for the second count—because “[a] sentence imposed
under § 924(c) must run consecutively to ‘any other term of
imprisonment imposed on the person.’” Id. at 65 (quoting
18
U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(D)(ii)). The Supreme Court also agreed with the
government that § 924(c)(1)(D)(ii)’s “requirement of consecutive
sentences removes the discretion to run sentences concurrently
that district courts exercise under [18 U.S.C. §] 3584.” Id. at 70.
As to Counts 2, 4, 6, and 8, Adams has not shown procedural
error in the district court’s calculation of his Guidelines sentence
under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.4(b) or in its imposition of four 25-year
USCA11 Case: 23-10190 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 12/20/2023 Page: 7 of 7
23-10190 Opinion of the Court 7
sentences, to be served consecutively to each other and to his
sentences on Counts 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10 and 11, as required by
18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1)(D)(ii). Accordingly, Adams’s sentences on Counts 2, 4,
6, and 8 are not procedurally unreasonable.
AFFIRMED.
