USA v. James Parker

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant James T. Parker. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam.

Case: 12-13153

Date Filed: 02/12/2013

Page: 1 of 5

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-13153
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 6:11-cr-00361-ACC-DAB-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JAMES T. PARKER,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(February 12, 2013)
Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, MARCUS and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant James Parker appeals his 48-month sentence, 24 months above the
guidelines range, that the district court imposed after he pled guilty to theft of

Case: 12-13153

Date Filed: 02/12/2013

Page: 2 of 5

government money, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641. On appeal, Parker argues that
his sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable because the district
court, in discussing only the fact that he dismembered his mother’s body after her
death, failed to explain adequately its justification for the upward variance, and
failed to consider all of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors.
We review the reasonableness of a sentence under a “deferential abuse-ofdiscretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 128 S. Ct. 586, 591,
169 L. Ed. 2d 445 (2007). Under the abuse-of-discretion standard, we will not
reverse a district court so long as the district court’s ruling does not constitute a
clear error of judgment. United States v. Frazier, 387 F.3d 1244, 1259 (11th Cir.
2004). The party challenging the sentence has the burden to establish that the
sentence is unreasonable. United States v. Turner, 626 F.3d 566, 573 (11th Cir.
2010). In reviewing a sentencing decision, we determine, first, whether the district
court committed any “significant procedural error,” and second, whether the
sentence was “substantively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances.”
Id.
We must consider several factors to determine if a sentence is procedurally
reasonable, including whether the district court properly calculated the guidelines
range, improperly treated the guidelines as mandatory, failed to consider the
§ 3553(a) factors, selected a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failed to
2

Case: 12-13153

Date Filed: 02/12/2013

Page: 3 of 5

adequately explain its chosen sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S. Ct. at 597.
The district court must “adequately explain the chosen sentence to allow for
meaningful appellate review.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 50, 128 S. Ct. at 597. If the
district court determines that a sentence outside the guidelines range is appropriate,
it should explain why the variance is appropriate 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) (internal
quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct. 1813 (2011).
After determining that the sentence is procedurally reasonable, this court
must consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51,
128 S. Ct. at 597. A sentence is substantively reasonable if, under the totality of
the circumstances, it achieves the purposes of § 3553(a). United States v.
Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319, 1324 (11th Cir. 2008). While the district court must
provide a sufficiently compelling justification for the variance, this Court “may not
presume that a sentence outside the guidelines is unreasonable and must give due
deference to the district court’s decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on a whole,
justify the extent of the variance.” Irey, 612 F.3d. at 1187 (internal quotation
marks omitted). This Court will only reverse due to a variance if it has a “definite
and firm conviction that the district court committed a clear error of judgment in
weighing the § 3553(a) factors by arriving at a sentence that lies outside the range
3

Case: 12-13153

Date Filed: 02/12/2013

Page: 4 of 5

of reasonable sentences dictated by the facts of the case.” United States v. Shaw,
560 F.3d 1230, 1238 (11th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The district court must impose a sentence “sufficient, but not greater than
necessary to comply with the purposes” listed in § 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. See 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). In imposing a particular sentence, the court must also
consider the nature and circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics
of the defendant, the kinds of sentences available, the applicable guideline range,
the pertinent policy statements of the Sentencing Commission, the need to avoid
unwanted sentencing disparities, and the need to provide restitution to victims.
§ 3553(a)(1), (3)-(7).
We conclude from the record that Parker’s 48-month sentence is reasonable.
The district court committed no procedural error. The court sufficiently explained
the reasoning behind the sentence imposed to allow for meaningful appellate
review. Gall, 552 U.S. at 50, 128 S. Ct. at 597. Furthermore, the court provided a
sufficiently compelling justification for the upward variance. Irey, 612 F.3d at
1187. The court explained that Parker’s mutilation of his mother’s body in order to
continue receiving her social security checks after her death merited the upward
variance. As to substantive unreasonableness, Parker argues that the district court
4

Case: 12-13153

Date Filed: 02/12/2013

Page: 5 of 5

improperly considered only two of the § 3553(a) factors. However, the court
explicitly stated that it had considered all of the sentencing factors in addition to
the underlying facts of the case. The weight given to each § 3553(a) factor is “a
matter committed to the sound discretion of the district court.” United States v.
Clay, 483 F.3d 739, 743 (11th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Parker has not met his burden to show an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we
affirm the sentence as procedurally and substantively reasonable.
AFFIRMED.

5