Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Jimmy Evans, 11th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    18 views5 pages
    This document summarizes a court case in which Jimmy Evans appealed his above-guideline total sentence of 200 months for aiding and abetting an attempted bank robbery and aiding and abetting the use of a firearm during a crime of violence. The appellate court found that the district court sufficiently justified the upward variance from the guidelines range based on Evans's leadership role in planning the violent robbery, attempts to threaten and manipulate co-defendants, and the need to protect the public and reflect the seriousness of the offense. As such, the appellate court affirmed the district court's sentencing decision.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2013-06-24 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 12-15195

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes a court case in which Jimmy Evans appealed his above-guideline total sentence of 200 months for aiding and abetting an attempted bank robbery and aiding and abetting the use of a firearm during a crime of violence. The appellate court found that the district court sufficiently justified the upward variance from the guidelines range based on Evans's leadership role in planning the violent robbery, attempts to threaten and manipulate co-defendants, and the need to protect the public and reflect the seriousness of the offense. As such, the appellate court affirmed the district court's sentencing decision.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    18 views5 pages

    United States v. Jimmy Evans, 11th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case in which Jimmy Evans appealed his above-guideline total sentence of 200 months for aiding and abetting an attempted bank robbery and aiding and abetting the use of a firearm during a crime of violence. The appellate court found that the district court sufficiently justified the upward variance from the guidelines range based on Evans's leadership role in planning the violent robbery, attempts to threaten and manipulate co-defendants, and the need to protect the public and reflect the seriousness of the offense. As such, the appellate court affirmed the district court's sentencing decision.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 5

    Case: 12-15195

    Date Filed: 06/24/2013

    Page: 1 of 5

    [DO NOT PUBLISH]

    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    ________________________
    No. 12-15195
    Non-Argument Calendar
    ________________________
    D.C. Docket No. 3:11-cr-00214-TJC-TEM-4

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    JIMMY EVANS,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Middle District of Florida
    ________________________
    (June 24, 2013)

    Before CARNES, BARKETT, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.

    Case: 12-15195

    Date Filed: 06/24/2013

    Page: 2 of 5

    PER CURIAM:

    Jimmy Evans appeals his total 200-month, above-guideline sentence,


    imposed after he pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting an attempted bank robbery,
    in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2113(a), (d), and 2 (Count One); and aiding and
    abetting the use of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, in
    violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A)(ii), and 2 (Count Three). Evanss total
    guideline range was 87 to 108 months on Count One, with a statutory minimum
    sentence of 84 months on Count Three, to run consecutive to the sentence imposed
    on Count One.
    On appeal, Evans argues that his sentence was substantively unreasonable,
    based on (1) the district courts failure to give real weight to the guidelines range,
    including its failure to explain its reasons for the upward variance; (2) the courts
    erroneous weighing of the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors; and (3) the
    totality of the circumstances. We see no reversible error.
    We review the reasonableness of a sentence under a deferential
    abuse-of-discretion standard of review. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 128
    S.Ct. 586, 591, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The party challenging the sentence bears
    the burden of showing it is unreasonable in the light of the record and the
    3553(a) factors. United States v. Tome, 611 F.3d 1371, 1378 (11th Cir. 2010).

    Case: 12-15195

    Date Filed: 06/24/2013

    Page: 3 of 5

    The district court is required to impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater
    than necessary, to comply with the purposes listed in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(2),
    including the need to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the
    law, provide just punishment for the offense, deter criminal conduct, and protect
    the public from the defendants future criminal conduct. See 18 U.S.C.
    3553(a)(2). In imposing a particular sentence, the district court must also
    consider the nature and circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics
    of the defendant, the applicable guideline range, and the need to avoid unwarranted
    sentencing disparities. Id. 3553(a)(1), (3)-(4), (6).
    The weight to be accorded any given 3553(a) factor is a matter committed
    to the sound discretion of the district court, and we will not substitute our judgment
    in weighing the relevant factors. United States v. Langston, 590 F.3d 1226, 1237
    (11th Cir. 2009). Extraordinary justification or rigid mathematical formulas are
    not required for a sentence outside the guidelines range, but we have said that the
    district court should explain why the variance is appropriate in a particular case
    and the justification for the variance must be sufficiently compelling to support
    the degree of the variance. United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1186-87 (11th
    Cir. 2010) (en banc) (quotation omitted). Likewise, although sentences outside the
    guidelines are not presumed to be unreasonable, we may take the degree of a

    Case: 12-15195

    Date Filed: 06/24/2013

    Page: 4 of 5

    variance into account. United States v. Shaw, 560 F.3d 1230, 1237 (11th Cir.
    2009).
    Based on the record, we cannot say that the district court imposed a
    substantively unreasonable sentence. The court clearly articulated enough its
    reasons for the upward variance, specifically noting the violent nature of the
    attempted robbery, Evanss leadership and planning role, and his attempts to
    obstruct justice. The court considered that Evans indicated that he had followed a
    female bank employee home and had learned that she had a husband that lived
    there, and that Evans instructed his codefendants that, if she did not cooperate, they
    were to apprehend the employees husband and use him to force her to open the
    vault. The court also considered that Evans had threatened his codefendants, and
    he forced one of them to sign an affidavit in an attempt to minimize his own
    punishment. The court was within its discretion to find that these circumstances
    took Evanss case out of the heartland of typical robbery cases and that the
    circumstances warranted the upward departure.
    In addition, the court considered the need to protect the public, reflect the
    seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, and provide just
    punishment. See 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(2)(A), (C). Furthermore, the court
    acknowledged Evanss mitigating factors, including his military service, history of
    alcoholism, and his own status as a robbery victim. Moreover, the degree of the
    4

    Case: 12-15195

    Date Filed: 06/24/2013

    Page: 5 of 5

    variance was not great (8 months); and the total 200-month sentence was well
    below the statutory maximum sentences of 300 months on Count One and life on
    Count Three. See Shaw, 560 F.3d at 1237; see also United States v. Gonzalez, 550
    F.3d 1319, 1324 (11th Cir. 2008) (noting that a sentence well below the statutory
    maximum was relevant to the reasonableness inquiry). Thus, based on the record,
    the justification for the variance was easily sufficiently compelling to support its
    degree. Evans cannot meet his burden of showing that the district court abused its
    discretion in the light of the record and the 3553(a) factors. See Gall, 552 U.S. at
    41, 128 S.Ct. at 591; Tome, 611 F.3d at 1378.
    AFFIRMED.

    You might also like