United States v. William Potts, Jr.

Case: 14-13317 Date Filed: 04/09/2015 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-13317
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:85-cr-00748-KMM-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
WILLIAM POTTS, JR.,
a.k.a. William Freeman, Jr.,
a.k.a. Lt. Spartacus,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(April 9, 2015)
Before JULIE CARNES, JILL PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
William Potts, Jr. appeals his 20-year pre-Sentencing Guidelines sentence,
imposed after he pled guilty to the superseding information’s charge of kidnapping
Case: 14-13317 Date Filed: 04/09/2015 Page: 2 of 4
in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1201(a)(3). His offense, committed in March 1984, arose out of his threat to
blow up a commercial aircraft on which he was a passenger if the pilot did not
divert the flight to Cuba. The grand jury originally indicted him in 1985 on a
charge of aircraft piracy, in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 1472(i).1 From 1984 to 1997,
he served a 13-year sentence in a Cuban prison related to the same conduct. On
appeal, Mr. Potts argues that the district court acted arbitrarily and capriciously,
resulting in a gross abuse of discretion, by imposing a 20-year sentence after he
already had served a 13-year sentence in Cuba for the same crime. Also, for the
first time on appeal, he argues that his 20-year sentence was the result of racial bias
because his white cell mate in Cuba served four years in Cuba “for the very same
offense” before returning to the United States and receiving an additional sentence
of only five years.
Upon review of the entire record on appeal, and after consideration of the
parties’ appellate briefs, we affirm.
We review a pre-Guidelines sentence for an abuse of discretion. United
States v. Duarte-Acero, 296 F.3d 1277, 1281 (11th Cir. 2002). In a pre-Guidelines
case, a district court “has broad discretion in the imposition of criminal sentences.”
United States v. Reme, 738 F.2d 1156, 1167 (11th Cir. 1984). “The severity of a
1
The crime of aircraft piracy is now codified at 49 U.S.C. § 46502.
2
Case: 14-13317 Date Filed: 04/09/2015 Page: 3 of 4
sentence imposed within the statutory limits is insulated from appellate review, but
the judicial process by which a sentence is determined is subject to appellate
scrutiny.” Id. “As long as the sentence is within statutory limits and there is no
showing of arbitrary or capricious action amounting to a gross abuse of discretion,
it will not be questioned on appeal.” United States v. Ard, 731 F.2d 718, 727 (11th
Cir. 1984). “While the district court may consider sentences imposed in similar
cases in arriving at its sentencing determination, the sentence is valid unless a
showing of abuse of discretion by the district court is made. A defendant cannot
rely upon the sentences which other defendants receive as any yardstick for his
sentence.” United States v. Hayes, 589 F.2d 811, 827 (5th Cir. 1979). 2
Here, the record reveals no arbitrary or capricious conduct by district court
in sentencing Mr. Potts. Instead, the record reveals that district court heard
argument from counsel for both parties regarding the appropriate sentence to be
imposed, with particular attention to the time he served and the conditions he
endured while incarcerated in Cuba. The court chose a 20-year sentence because,
with that sentence, Mr. Potts would become eligible for parole after serving one-
third of the sentence, or approximately seven years. The court reasoned that the
resulting seven-year sentence, combined with his 13-year term of imprisonment in
Cuba, would approximate the 20-year mandatory minimum that he would have
2
In Bonner v. City of Pritchard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), we adopted as
binding precedent the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit rendered prior to October 1, 1981.
3
Case: 14-13317 Date Filed: 04/09/2015 Page: 4 of 4
received if the government had proceeded on the charge of aircraft piracy from the
original indictment.
With regard to the disparate-sentencing argument that Mr. Potts raises for
the first time on appeal, there is no evidence that the district judge was ever made
aware of the cell mate’s circumstances, but even if she had been, under our
pre-Guidelines sentencing precedent, he cannot rely on the sentences that other
defendants received as grounds to challenge his own sentence. See id.AFFIRMED.
4