United States v. Crenshaw

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 06a0350n.06
Filed: May 16, 2006
No. 05-6018
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
) ON APPEAL FROM THE
Plaintiff-Appellee ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT
) COURT FOR THE WESTERN
v. ) DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
)
JAMES CRENSHAW ) OPINION
)
Defendant-Appellant. )
BEFORE: SUTTON and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges; and CALDWELL, District Judge.*
McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge. Defendant-Appellant James Crenshaw pled guilty to one
count of felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) and was sentenced to 115
months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Crenshaw challenges the reasonableness of his sentence,
arguing that the district court’s stated reasons for sentencing at the high end of the Guideline range
were insufficient to allow effective appellate review, that the district court did not adequately
consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and that the sentence was substantively unreasonable. For
the reasons stated below, we affirm Crenshaw’s sentence.
I.
James Crenshaw was arrested on September 25, 2002, following an incident in which shots
were fired. Crenshaw had stolen a firearm from Robert Graham*s grandmother. When confronted
*
The Honorable Karen K. Caldwell, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of
Kentucky, sitting by designation.
No. 05-6018
United States v. Crenshaw
by Graham with the theft, Crenshaw became “very angry, ran into his house, and returned with the
handgun. . . [and] then fired five shots toward Graham.” Although Graham was not injured, officers
found three bullet holes in the house. Crenshaw ultimately pled guilty to one count of felon in
possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). At the sentencing hearing, the district
court calculated Crenshaw’s Guideline sentencing range as 92 to 115 months. Neither party
objected to the Guideline calculations. The district court acknowledged that the Guidelines were
advisory and stated that the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) would be taken into account as well
as the advisory Guideline range in coming to an appropriate sentence. The United States
recommended a sentence at the low end of the 92-115 month Guideline range, as agreed in the plea
agreement.1 Defense counsel requested that the district court take into consideration Crenshaw*s
history of mental illness and then requested the district court to stand by the plea agreement.
At the sentencing hearing, the district court expressly noted that Crenshaw had twenty-four
criminal history points versus the thirteen to sixteen which would be the norm for his criminal
history category. The district court confirmed with Crenshaw that he did indeed steal the weapon.
Then the district court commented on Crenshaw’s criminal conduct, the facts underlying the charge,
and the fact that Crenshaw fired shots at a person and fortunately missed. The district court
sentenced Crenshaw to 115 months’ imprisonment and three years of supervised release. The
district court imposed mental health counseling as one of the conditions of supervised release. After
imposing this sentence the court gave the following explanation:
1
The plea agreement made it clear that this recommendation by the government would not
be binding on the district court.
-2-
No. 05-6018
United States v. Crenshaw
I wanted to provide some explanation since the government recommended the low
end. A sentence at 115 months is the higher end of the sentencing range, and it is
really based on the criminal history that - propensity for violence and the need to
protect the public in the case, and multiple firings of a weapon which emphasizes the
need to protect the public. I do agree that we need to get you some mental health
care, and that’s probably the key to the whole situation is to try to get you proper
health care. . . .
Crenshaw timely appealed his sentence, arguing that it is both procedurally and substantively
unreasonable.
II.
Post-Booker, “[t]he courts of appeals review sentencing decisions for unreasonableness.”
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 264 (2005). When sentencing, a district court must articulate
the reasons for the particular sentence imposed in order to enable this Court to engage in a
meaningful reasonableness review of the sentence. United States v. Jackson, 408 F.3d 301, 305 (6th
Cir. 2005). Crenshaw’s first argument is that the district court’s stated reasons for sentencing at the
high end of the Guideline range were insufficient to allow effective appellate review. This argument
is unpersuasive. The district judge explained that he chose a sentence at the high end of the range
based on Crenshaw’s extensive criminal history, the fact that the history demonstrated a propensity
for violence, and the resulting need to protect the public.
Even though district courts have greater discretion in sentencing after Booker, they must
consider the advisory provisions of the Guidelines and the other factors identified in 18 U.S.C. §
3553(a). Jackson, 408 F.3d at 305. Crenshaw’s second argument is that the district court did not
adequately consider the § 3553(a) factors before imposing the sentence. The record does not support
this claim. The district court listed the §3553(a) factors and stated that it considered those factors
-3-
No. 05-6018
United States v. Crenshaw
in arriving at an appropriate sentence. The district judge specifically discussed Crenshaw’s history
of extensive criminal involvement from a young age, his demonstrated propensity for violence, and
the need to protect the public. Moreover, the district judge demonstrated that he was aware of
Crenshaw’s history of mental illness and need for mental health treatment, the very factor Crenshaw
claims was not considered. The district court properly considered the factors set forth in § 3553(a)
in crafting an appropriate sentence.
Crenshaw’s final argument is that the sentence was longer than necessary to achieve the
purposes of sentencing. He claims that while the 92-month sentence he sought would have been
appropriate, the 115-month sentence was excessively and unreasonably long. According to
Crenshaw, his mental illness should have been taken into account to lessen his sentence in spite of
his extensive criminal history. Contrary to these arguments, the mere fact of Crenshaw’s mental
health problems does not render a sentence at the high end of the Guideline range unreasonable. The
district court took all the appropriate facts and circumstances into account and sentenced Crenshaw
at the high end of the Guideline range. A sentence within the applicable Guideline range is
presumptively reasonable. United States v. Williams, 436 F.3d 706, 708 (6th Cir. 2006). Crenshaw
has not pointed to anything which overcomes that presumption here. The 115-month sentence is
reasonable.
V.
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s sentence in this case.
-4-