United States v. Jeremy L. Addison

Case: 16-16807 Date Filed: 09/05/2017 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-16807
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:15-cr-20846-JAL-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JEREMY L. ADDISON,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(September 5, 2017)
Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, HULL, and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 16-16807 Date Filed: 09/05/2017 Page: 2 of 5
Jeremy Lorenzo Addison pleaded guilty to forcibly assaulting a federal
officer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1) and (b), and was sentenced to 204
months imprisonment. He appeals his sentence, contending that it is procedurally
and substantively unreasonable.
Addison’s base offense level under the United States Sentencing Guidelines
was 14. U.S.S.G. § 2A2.2(a) (2015). He received a 3-level enhancement because
the victim sustained bodily injury, id. § 2A2.2(b)(3)(A), a two-level enhancement
because he was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 111(b), id. § 2A2.2(b)(7), and a 6-
level enhancement because he knew that the victim was a prison official and
assaulted him while in custody, id. § 3A1.2(c)(2). Those enhancements yielded a
total offense level of 25. Addison also had an extensive criminal history, including
seven batteries against law enforcement officers, which resulted in a criminal
history category of VI. Based on an offense level of 25 and criminal history
category of VI, Addison’s guidelines range was 110 to 137 months imprisonment.
The government moved for an upward variance based on Addison’s criminal
record, history of violence, and multiple death threats to federal officials, one of
which he made to an Assistant United States Attorney while awaiting sentencing in
this case. At sentencing, Addison contended that a guidelines sentence was
appropriate in light of his troubled childhood and history of mental illness. The
district court found that the seriousness of the offense, the need to protect the
2
Case: 16-16807 Date Filed: 09/05/2017 Page: 3 of 5
public, and Addison’s history and characteristics warranted a 204 month
sentence — a variance of 67 months over the high end of Addison’s guidelines
range.
We review only for an abuse of discretion the reasonableness of a sentence.
United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1188–89 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc). “The
party challenging the sentence bears the burden to show it is unreasonable in light
of the record and the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Tome, 611
F.3d 1371, 1378 (11th Cir. 2010).
Addison first contends that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable
because the district court failed to sufficiently justify the upward variance. We
disagree. When a district court imposes a sentence outside the guidelines range, its
justification must be “sufficiently compelling to support the degree of the
variance.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 50, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). We
have held that a “major variance” outside the guidelines range “require[s] a more
significant justification than a minor one.” Irey, 612 F.3d at 1196. Such a
sentence is procedurally reasonable, however, as long as the record shows that the
district court “listened to the evidence and arguments and was aware of the various
factors the defendant put forward for a lesser sentence.” Id. at 1195.
The record shows that the district court not only listened to the evidence and
arguments, but also discussed at length the reasons supporting an upward variance.
3
Case: 16-16807 Date Filed: 09/05/2017 Page: 4 of 5
It described, among other things, the nature of the offense and Addison’s specific
history and characteristics. Its reasoning comprised ten pages of the sentence
hearing transcript. That was more than enough. See id. Although Addison asserts
that the district court merely recited the § 3553(a) factors, “the district court is not
required . . . to discuss each of the § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Sanchez,
586 F.3d 918, 936 (11th Cir. 2009). Addison’s sentence is procedurally
reasonable.
Addison next contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. He
argues that the district court gave short shrift to his specific history and
characteristics. Under the abuse of discretion standard, we will affirm a sentence
unless 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 of reasonable
sentences.” Irey, 612 F.3d at 1190.
The record shows that the district court considered Addison’s troubled
childhood and history of mental illness among other factors, including the need to
protect the public and his extensive criminal history, which included seven
convictions for battery on a detention officer, a conviction for aggravated assault
with a deadly weapon, and a conviction for threatening to kill the President and a
Secret Service agent. Our task is not to reweigh the § 3553(a) factors but to
4
Case: 16-16807 Date Filed: 09/05/2017 Page: 5 of 5
determine whether the district court abused its discretion. See id. at 1188–89. It
did not.
Finally, Addison argues that the district court should not have considered the
facts supporting his several guidelines enhancements when deciding whether to
vary upwards from the guidelines range. But our precedent permitted the district
court to do precisely that. United States v. Rodriguez, 628 F.3d 1258, 1264 (11th
Cir. 2010) (“[A] district court can rely on factors in imposing a variance that it
ha[s] already considered in imposing an enhancement.”). Addison’s sentence is
substantively reasonable.
AFFIRMED.
5