Posts Tagged ‘plain error’

District Court’s reliance on PSI’s characterization of firearm defendant convicted of possessing was correct for enhancing his sentence.

Thursday, July 9th, 2009

United States v. Beckles, 565 F.3d 832 (11th Cir. 2009)

The defendant was convicted of being convicted felon in possession of firearm.  Even assuming that the district court, in treating defendant’s current offense as a “crime of violence,” committed error that was plain or obvious based on its reliance on the PSI’s characterization of the firearm that defendant was convicted of possessing as “sawed-off shotgun,” the error was not shown to have affected defendant’s substantial rights, and therefore could not be corrected on plain error review, given the complete lack of evidence that the firearm that defendant possessed was not a sawed-off shotgun.

A sentence of 360-months imprisonment imposed on armed career criminal convicted of unlawfully possessing sawed-off shotgun was not unreasonable.

Based on a total offense level of 37 and a criminal history category of VI, the guidelines range was 360 months’ to life imprisonment, including a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years under the statute. The sentence was not unreasonable, though the district court allegedly failed to adequately consider the statutory sentencing and mitigating factors such as defendant’s troubled childhood and drug addiction, where the district court explicitly stated that it had given careful consideration to those statutory factors, and that the sentence imposed was needed to account for the serious nature of the offense and needed to provide deterrence in order to safeguard the community.

The defendant’s 16-level increase for illegal reentry stands even though the newly amended guidelines would allow for a departure.

Tuesday, April 28th, 2009

U.S. v. GONZALEZ, 550 F.3d 1319 (11th Cir. Dec. 12, 2008)

The Court rejected challenges to the defendant’s 50 month sentence following her guilty plea for illegally reentering the United States after having been deported. The sentencing court relied on the since-amended Guideline, § 2BI.2(b)(I)(A)(ii), and treated a prior bank robbery as a basis for a 16-level sentence enhancement. The amended guideline gave the sentencing court discretion to impose a 16-level enhancement based on this prior offense. Even though the enhancement was no longer mandatory, the error was not plain because nothing in the record suggested that the court would impose a lesser sentence on resentencing. The Court also rejected the argument that the sentence was unreasonable. In consideration of the § 3553(a) factors, the district court does not need to discuss or state each factor explicitly. An acknowledgment the district court has considered the defendant’s arguments and the § 3553(a) factors will suffice.” Here, the district court satisfied these requirements.