United States v. Hensel Joseph

Case: 14-15440 Date Filed: 08/10/2015 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-15440
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cr-20380-BB-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
HENSEL JOSEPH,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(August 10, 2015)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JILL PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 14-15440 Date Filed: 08/10/2015 Page: 2 of 3
Hensel Joseph appeals his 46-month sentence, imposed after pleading guilty
to bank robbery and attempted bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a).
Joseph argues the district court erred because (1) the two-level enhancement
imposed under U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(1) for taking the property of a financial
institution constituted impermissible double counting, and (2) his sentence was
substantively unreasonable. After review,1 we affirm.
As Joseph acknowledges in his initial brief, our precedent forecloses
Joseph’s double-counting argument. See United States v. Dudley,
102 F.3d 1184, 1186–87 (11th Cir. 1997) (holding a district court does not err in a
bank-robbery case when it imposes a two-level enhancement under § 2B3.1(b)(1)
for taking the property of a financial institution.) The district court did not abuse
its discretion in sentencing Joseph to 46 months of imprisonment. The district
court imposed the sentence at the minimum of Joseph’s guidelines range. See
United States v. Asante, 782 F.3d 639, 648 (11th Cir. 2015) (“[W]e ordinarily
expect a sentence within the Guidelines ranges to be reasonable.”) (quotation
omitted). The district court considered the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a). While acknowledging his unique immigration status and medical
1
We review de novo claims of double counting under the Sentencing Guidelines.
United States v. Webb, 665 F.3d 1380, 1382 (11th Cir. 2012). We review the substantive
reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41
(2007).
2
Case: 14-15440 Date Filed: 08/10/2015 Page: 3 of 3
history, the district court noted those reasons did not justify his commission of six
bank robberies.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Joseph’s sentence.
AFFIRMED.
3