USA v. Joseph Boylen

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Joseph Andrew Boylen. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam.

Case: 12-12675

Date Filed: 03/07/2013

Page: 1 of 4

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-12675
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:11-cr-00311-SCB-MAP-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOSEPH ANDREW BOYLEN,
a.k.a. Joe Boylen,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(March 7, 2013)
Before HULL, PRYOR and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Joseph Andrew Boylen appeals his sentence of 87 months of imprisonment
for being a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and distributing

Case: 12-12675

Date Filed: 03/07/2013

Page: 2 of 4

methylenedioxymethamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). Boylen
challenges the enhancement of his sentence for possessing a firearm in connection
with his drug sales and the reasonableness of his sentence. We affirm.
The district court did not clearly err when it enhanced Boylen’s sentence for
possessing a firearm in connection with his drug sales. A defendant is subject to a
4-point increase in his base offense level if he “[u]sed or possessed any firearm or
ammunition in connection with another felony offense; or possessed or transferred
any firearm or ammunition with knowledge, intent, or reason to believe that it
would be used or possessed in connection with another felony offense.” United
States Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) (Nov. 2011). On several
occasions, Boylen offered to sell firearms and drugs to an undercover detective of
the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office and completed the sales in simultaneous
or virtually simultaneous transactions. Undoubtedly, the firearms “facilitated”
Boylen’s drug sales and “had the potential of facilitating” future drug sales for
Boylen. Id. § 2K2.1 cmt n.14(A). The district court reasonably inferred that
Boylen “was in the business of supplying both drugs and firearms” and was willing
to supply both to earn “and to maintain [the detective’s] confidence and business.”
United States v. Thompson, 32 F.3d 1, 7–8 (1st Cir. 1994) (cited in United States
v. Matos-Rodriguez, 188 F.3d 1300, 1308 (11th Cir. 1999)).

2

Case: 12-12675

Date Filed: 03/07/2013

Page: 3 of 4

Boylen’s sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable. The district
stated it had read the presentence investigation report and, after considering the
parties’ arguments and the sentencing factors, had decided to impose a sentence at
the low end of Boylen’s advisory guidelines range of 87 to 108 months of
imprisonment. Boylen requested that the district court vary downward from the
guideline range, but the district court explained that Boylen’s “bad childhood” was
“not a reason to break the law” and that Boylen “had been in trouble” before his
“dirt-bike accident” that affected his ability to “earn[] a living.” The district court
reasonably determined that a sentence of 87 months of imprisonment was
necessary to address Boylen’s crimes of “selling guns” and drugs; the seriousness
of selling firearms, “especially sawed-off shotguns and guns with obliterated serial
numbers,” which “always [poses] a danger for the community”; and the
seriousness of selling “Ecstasy.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). And Boylen’s sentence
is well below his maximum statutory punishment, which suggests that the sentence
is reasonable. See United States v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319, 1324 (11th Cir.
2008). Boylen argues that he should have received a lesser sentence like his
cohort, Rachel Lancaster, but Boylen is not similarly situated to Lancaster. See
United States v. Docampo, 573 F.3d 1091, 1101–02 (11th Cir.2009). Boylen
pleaded guilty to selling drugs and firearms, but Lancaster provided information

3

Case: 12-12675

Date Filed: 03/07/2013

Page: 4 of 4

that led to arrests of two individuals and then pleaded guilty in a state court to only
a drug offense. The district court did not abuse its discretion.
We AFFIRM Boylen’s sentence.

4