USA v. Hubert Gilbert

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Hubert Gilbert. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 15-15486

Date Filed: 06/06/2016

Page: 1 of 5

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-15486
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:01-cr-00396-FAM-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
HUBERT GILBERT,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(June 6, 2016)
Before TJOFLAT, WILLIAM PRYOR and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Hubert Gilbert appeals the denial of his motion to reduce his sentence. 18

Case: 15-15486

Date Filed: 06/06/2016

Page: 2 of 5

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Gilbert requested a reduction based on Amendment 782 to the
Sentencing Guidelines. We affirm.
Gilbert pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to possess with intent to
distribute marijuana and five kilograms or more of cocaine, 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(b)(1)(A)(ii), 841(b)(1)(D), 846, one count of conspiring to obstruct, delay,
or affect commerce by robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), two counts of using, carrying,
brandishing, or possessing a firearm during a crime of violence or drug trafficking
crime, id. § 924(c), and one count of carjacking, id. § 2119. Gilbert’s presentence
investigation report described his involvement in three home invasion robberies
that targeted homes of known drug dealers. During the first robbery, Gilbert waited
in the getaway car as his coconspirators pried open the door of the home, held the
homeowner’s wife and children at gunpoint while demanding money and drugs,
pistol-whipped the wife until she divulged the location of $4,000 in cash,
threatened to kill the wife until the children disclosed the whereabouts of a hidden
compartment containing valuables, and then ransacked the house after locking the
victims in a closet. Later, Gilbert and his cohorts broke into a second home and
threatened to kill a female occupant unless she cooperated, but the cohorts were
forced to flee after one of them was shot by another occupant. During the third
robbery, Gilbert and his cohorts entered the home wielding guns, pistol-whipped
and drug the occupants through the home demanding money and jewelry, bound
2

Case: 15-15486

Date Filed: 06/06/2016

Page: 3 of 5

the occupants with duct tape, and stole $2,724 in cash, jewelry and two vehicles
valued around $11,000, and about eight pounds of marijuana.
Over the course of two sentencing hearings, the district court found that
Gilbert had a criminal history of IV, his first robbery involved 5 to 15 kilograms of
cocaine and resulted in a base offense level of 32, he had a managerial role in the
conspiracy, and he knew or should have known that his victims were vulnerable.
Based on Gilbert’s total offense level of 38, the district court calculated a
sentencing range between 324 and 405 months of imprisonment. The district court
sentenced Gilbert to concurrent sentences of 324 months for his conspiracy to
distribute drugs, 240 months for conspiring to affect commerce, and 180 months
for carjacking. The district court also imposed sentences of 240 months and 60
months for Gilbert’s two firearm offenses, with the instruction that they run
consecutively to each other and to his sentence for conspiring to distribute drugs.
Gilbert moved for a reduction of his sentence under Amendment 782. The
government acknowledged that the amendment applied to Gilbert and reduced his
base offense level to 36, which was then increased by one level for his multiple
offenses, see U.S.S.G. § 3D1.4. But the government opposed any reduction of
Gilbert’s sentence based on the statutory sentencing factors, which required
consideration of his involvement in the planning and selection of the robbery
victims, the violent nature of the robberies, his criminal history, and the record of
3

Case: 15-15486

Date Filed: 06/06/2016

Page: 4 of 5

his escalating criminal behavior. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The district court
appointed counsel for Gilbert, who argued for a 32-month reduction in his sentence
because that would not create any concerns for the safety of the public and would
reflect his efforts to improve his mental health, life skills, and education while in
prison.
We review the denial of a motion to reduce a sentence for abuse of
discretion. United States v. Jules, 595 F.3d 1239, 1241 (11th Cir. 2010). A district
court may reduce a term of imprisonment when the defendant’s guideline range is
lowered by the Sentencing Commission. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). After the district
court recalculates the sentence under the amended guidelines, it must decide, in the
light of the statutory sentencing factors, id. § 3553(a), “whether, in its discretion, it
will elect to impose the newly calculated sentence under the amended guidelines or
retain the original sentence.” United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 780–81 (11th
Cir. 2000).
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Gilbert’s
motion. The district court determined that Gilbert was eligible for a reduction. But
upon consideration of Gilbert’s motion and the parties’ arguments, the district
court decided to retain Gilbert’s sentence of 324 months. That sentence, the district
court reasonably determined, was warranted “in view of the violent nature of the
three home invasion robberies during which [Gilbert and his cohorts] used and
4

Case: 15-15486

Date Filed: 06/06/2016

Page: 5 of 5

carried firearms.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The district court was not required to
address or explain the weight that it assigned each individual sentencing factor in
its order denying Gilbert’s motion. See United States v. Brown, 104 F.3d 1254,
1256 (11th Cir. 1997).
We AFFIRM the denial of Gilbert’s motion to reduce.

5