United States v. Jeffery Barnes

Case: 14-10027 Date Filed: 07/02/2014 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-10027
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:13-cr-00133-BAE-GRS-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JEFFERY STEPHEN BARNES,
Defendant-Appellant.
__________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
_________________________
(July 2, 2014)
Before PRYOR, MARTIN, and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Jeffery Barnes appeals his 42-month sentence for distribution of cocaine
hydrochloride. After review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm.
Case: 14-10027 Date Filed: 07/02/2014 Page: 2 of 5
I
Because we write for the parties, we assume familiarity with the underlying
facts of the case and recite only what is necessary to resolve this appeal.
Following three cocaine sales transactions with undercover agents of the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, Mr. Barnes was charged
with and ultimately pled guilty to distribution of cocaine hydrochloride, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1). Mr. Barnes acknowledges that the pre-
sentence investigation report correctly assigned to him a criminal history category
of III and a total offense level of 12, which carried with it an advisory guidelines
range of 15 to 21 months’ imprisonment. The report’s criminal history
classification took into account prior convictions for sale of crack cocaine and
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, but did not reflect five older
convictions, including those for possession of marijuana and distribution of
cocaine. Observing that, among other things, Mr. Barnes’ criminal history
classification understated the seriousness of his criminal record, and his conviction
for distribution of cocaine would have qualified him as a career offender, the
probation officer who prepared the report recommended a sentence of 60 months’
imprisonment.
At sentencing, the district court expressed concern that Mr. Barnes’ criminal
history classification did not adequately reflect the extent of his criminal record,
2
Case: 14-10027 Date Filed: 07/02/2014 Page: 3 of 5
and that the prior sentences had done little to deter Mr. Barnes from engaging in
criminal conduct. Observing that "during the majority of [his] adult life he has
remained incarcerated or on some form of supervision," and that he "narrowly
escape[d] being termed a career offender" with an advisory guidelines range of 151
to 188 months’ imprisonment, the district court imposed a sentence of 42 months’
imprisonment followed by five years’ supervised release.
On appeal, Mr. Barnes argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable
because his advisory guidelines calculation adequately took into account his
criminal history, and because the district court disregarded or gave too little weight
to the fact that he promptly accepted responsibility, the fact that his crime was
devoid of facts which would have resulted in enhancements under the Sentencing
Guidelines, and the fact that the government conceded that he was non-violent.
II
We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of
discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). This standard
applies “[r]egardless of whether the sentence imposed is inside or outside the
Guidelines range.” Id. Even if the district court's sentence is more severe or more
lenient than the sentence we would have imposed, we will only reverse if we are
“left with the definite and firm conviction that the district court committed a clear
error of judgment in weighing the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors by arriving at a
3
Case: 14-10027 Date Filed: 07/02/2014 Page: 4 of 5
sentence that lies outside the range of reasonable sentences dictated by the facts of
the case.” United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1190 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc)
(quoting United States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179, 1191 (11th Cir. 2008)). “In
reviewing the reasonableness of a sentence, we must, as the Supreme Court has
instructed us, consider the totality of the facts and circumstances.” Id. at 1189.
III
Mr. Barnes principally challenges the substantive reasonableness of his
sentence on the grounds that his advisory guidelines range sufficiently reflected his
criminal history, and that the district court abused its discretion by not taking into
account his early acceptance of responsibility, his nonviolent nature, and the lack
of enhancements applicable to his crime. We are not persuaded.
Contrary to Mr. Barnes’ argument, the district court is not limited to
considering conduct used to calculate a defendant's advisory guidelines range in
deciding whether to impose a sentence based on a variance. Indeed, 18 U.S.C. §
3553(a) requires the district court to take into account the defendant's “history and
characteristics,” which implicitly encompasses criminal history not already
accounted for in the advisory guidelines calculations. See also United States v.
Rodriguez, 628 F.3d 1258, 1264 (11th Cir. 2010) (holding that a district court need
not impose an enhancement before granting a variance). The district court
4
Case: 14-10027 Date Filed: 07/02/2014 Page: 5 of 5
therefore permissibly considered crimes that were not taken into account in
determining Mr. Barnes’ advisory guidelines range.
Nor did the district court’s purported failure to take into account Mr. Barnes’
mitigating factors render its sentence substantively unreasonable. The fact that the
district court did not explicitly reference these factors on the record in imposing its
sentence does not indicate that it “erroneously ‘ignored’ or failed to consider this
evidence in determining [Mr. Barnes’] sentence.” United States v. Amedeo, 487
F.3d 823, 833 (11th Cir. 2007). Mr. Barnes’ sentence falls well below the 60
months’ imprisonment recommended by the probation officer, and is likewise 198
months below the 240-month statutory maximum, strongly suggesting that the
district court did consider mitigating evidence in arriving at its sentence. See
United States v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319, 1324 (11th Cir. 2008) (citing the fact
that sentence fell below statutory maximum as an indicator that sentence was
reasonable).
Under the totality of the circumstances, we cannot say that the district court
committed a clear error of judgment and imposed a sentence outside the range of
reasonable sentences.
IV
Mr. Barnes’ 42-month sentence is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
5