USA v. Nyneson Jeudy

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Nyneson S. Jeudy. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam.

Case: 13-15222

Date Filed: 08/08/2014

Page: 1 of 6

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-15222
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 7:13-cr-00001-HL-TQL-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
NYNESON S. JEUDY,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
________________________
(August 8, 2014)

Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 13-15222

Date Filed: 08/08/2014

Page: 2 of 6

Nyneson S. Jeudy appeals his 141-month total sentence imposed after
pleading guilty to one count of interference with commerce by robbery, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951 and 2, and one count of brandishing a firearm in the
commission of a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A) and
2. Jeudy contends the district court’s order to run his federal sentence consecutive
to his undischarged state sentence was unreasonable under the factors set forth in
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), because the court did not give adequate consideration to his
personal history or the disparity between his sentence and his codefendant’s lesser
sentence. After review, we affirm Jeudy’s sentence.
Where a term of imprisonment is imposed on a defendant who is already
subject to an undischarged term of imprisonment, the terms may run concurrently
or consecutively. 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a). To determine whether to impose a
sentence concurrently, partially concurrently, or consecutively to an undischarged
term of imprisonment, the court should consider the factors enumerated in 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a). Id. § 3584(b); U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(c). In addition, the
commentary to § 5G1.3 provides that the court should also consider, inter alia, any
other circumstance relevant to the determination of an appropriate sentence for the
instant offense. U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3, comment. (n.3).
Section 3553(a) provides the district court is required to impose a sentence
“sufficient, but not greater than necessary to comply with the purposes” listed in 18
2

Case: 13-15222

Date Filed: 08/08/2014

Page: 3 of 6

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 defendant’s future criminal conduct. 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 Guidelines range,
the pertinent policy statements of the Sentencing Commission, the need to avoid
unwarranted sentencing disparities, and the need to provide restitution to victims.
Id. § 3553(a)(1), (3)-(7).
Jeudy does not demonstrate the district court’s decision to impose the
sentence consecutive to his undischarged state sentence is unreasonable in light of
the record and the § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784,
788 (11th Cir. 2005) (stating the party challenging the sentence has the burden of
establishing the sentence is unreasonable in light of the record and the § 3553(a)
factors). Rather, it was within the district court’s discretion to impose his federal
sentence consecutive to his undischarged state court sentence, and the sentence met
the goals encompassed within § 3553(a). See United States v. Kuhlman, 711 F.3d
1321, 1326 (11th Cir. 2013) (reviewing the reasonableness of a sentence under an
abuse-of-discretion standard).

3

Case: 13-15222

Date Filed: 08/08/2014

Page: 4 of 6

In announcing its decision to run the sentence consecutive to the state court
sentence, the district court stated it had considered the § 3553(a) sentencing
factors. Moreover, the court’s statements show it did consider the § 3553(a)
factors and the parties’ arguments. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356
(2007) (explaining the district court is required to set forth enough reasons to show
it has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for its decision).
First, with respect to Jeudy’s argument that he faced a more severe punishment
than his codefendant, the court noted that charging lies in the discretion of the
United States Attorney. The court then considered relevant differences between
the two offenders that may warrant differing sentences. Specifically, when the
issue was first raised, the court inquired whether Jeudy’s codefendant, Sutton, had
“shot anybody else” as Jeudy had in the past. Later, when announcing the
sentence, the court specifically stated, “you were the man with the gun in the
incident that brings you here today.” Accordingly, the district court did not ignore
this argument and did not abuse its discretion in imposing a consecutive sentence
that was longer than that of Jeudy’s codefendant.
Next, the court specifically addressed the nature and circumstance of the
offense and history and characteristics of the defendant when it stated that Jeudy’s
conduct was “bad in the extreme,” and further commented, “I always have
reservations about sending someone your age into the penitentiary for a long
4

Case: 13-15222

Date Filed: 08/08/2014

Page: 5 of 6

period of time. People your age do things that they probably would not do if they
were older.” With respect to the need for the sentence imposed to reflect the
seriousness of the offense and to promote respect for the law, the court commented
that Jeudy’s conduct showed “a disregard for the law on your part that is almost
total” and further explained, “I think after you have served your sentence or most
of it you will have matured and you will, at least, come to appreciate the things that
concern me in imposing this sentence.” The court also addressed the need to
protect the public, noting that Jeudy had “already shot one person,” and “could
very well have shot somebody in that [Dollar General] store.”
Finally, the record does not reflect that the district court ignored Jeudy’s
mitigation arguments. See United States v. Amedeo, 487 F.3d 823, 833 (11th Cir.
2007) (stating a district court’s failure to specifically discuss mitigating evidence
does not mean that it erroneously ignored or failed to consider this evidence in
determining a sentence). Rather, after hearing Jeudy’s arguments through counsel
and hearing from Jeudy directly, the court stated “you are the source of your
problem yourself,” “nobody but you. And it is what it is and it’s got to be dealt
with.” Nevertheless, while the court declined to sentence him concurrently, it
stated that it was “not going to sentence him at the top of the guidelines range
either.” Accordingly, the district court’s statements reflect that it considered the
seriousness of the offense and adequately acknowledged the § 3553(a) factors in
5

Case: 13-15222

Date Filed: 08/08/2014

Page: 6 of 6

rendering its decision to run the sentence consecutive. See Rita, 551 U.S. at 356.
Jeudy has not carried his burden in demonstrating the district court abused its
discretion. Thus, we affirm Jeudy’s sentence.
AFFIRMED.

6