United States v. Bryant

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
U.S.
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
SEP 29, 2011
No. 10-14768 JOHN LEY
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:10-cr-00065-LC-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JEFFREY THOMAS BRYANT,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(September 29, 2011)
Before EDMONDSON, WILSON and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey Thomas Bryant appeals the 78-month sentence he received after
pleading guilty to two counts of possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). His sentence reflects a 27-month upward
departure, imposed pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(a). On appeal, Bryant argues
that his sentence is substantively unreasonable.
We review sentences for reasonableness under a deferential abuse-of
discretion-standard. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). The
burden of demonstrating unreasonableness lies with the party challenging the
sentence. United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir. 2005) (per
curiam). We find a sentence substantively unreasonable if, after considering the
totality of the facts and circumstances, 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. See United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1189–90 (11th
Cir. 2010) (en banc), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 1813 (2011). That a sentence falls
below a statutory maximum penalty is an indicator of reasonableness. See United
States v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319, 1324 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (noting that
the defendant’s sentence was well below the statutory maximum when upholding
the sentence as substantively reasonable). Extraordinary circumstances are not
required to justify a sentence outside the Guidelines range. See Gall, 552 U.S. at
47.
2
Bryant’s 78-month sentence is substantively reasonable. The district court
considered his criminal history, which included thirty-one criminal convictions.
His criminal-history category did not account for six occasions on which Bryant
was convicted for serious offenses. Additionally, Bryant used marijuana while on
pre-trial release, and then attempted to hide that fact by providing fake urine for a
drug test. In light of Bryant’s history, the district court found that the public
should be protected from Bryant’s likelihood of future criminal conduct. The
district court also considered the § 3553(a) factors after hearing arguments from
both parties. Finally, Bryant’s sentence is below the statutory maximum of ten
years. Under these facts and circumstances, Bryant has failed to demonstrate that
the district court committed a clear error of judgment. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
3