USA v. Shakaderius Toney

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Shakaderius Archie Toney. 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: 16-10813

Date Filed: 02/09/2017

Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-10813
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:15-cr-00250-LSC-SGC-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
SHAKADERIUS ARCHIE TONEY,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
________________________
(February 9, 2017)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JORDAN and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 16-10813

Date Filed: 02/09/2017

Page: 2 of 3

Shakaderius Toney appeals his sentence of imprisonment for 37 months,
after pleading guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1). Toney argues that his sentence at the high end of the advisory
guideline range is unreasonable. He contends that the district court abused its
discretion by focusing almost exclusively on his criminal history and by not
considering the mitigating factors he presented at sentencing. We affirm.
We review the reasonableness of a sentence under a deferential standard for
abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007).
The district court did not abuse its discretion. The record establishes that the
district court listened to Toney’s arguments at sentencing about the mitigating
factors in his history and characteristics, but determined that his request for a
sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment, the low-end of the advisory guideline range,
was too lenient. Although the district court mentioned that Toney’s criminal
history was “horrendous for a short period of time,” the district court also
considered Toney’s history and characteristics, the nature of his offense, the need
for deterrence, and the protection of the public. The district court did not rely on a
single factor to the detriment of others, give weight to an irrelevant factor, or make
a clear error of judgment when it gave greater weight to Toney’s criminal history.
Toney’s 37-month sentence is well below the statutory maximum penalty of 120

2

Case: 16-10813

Date Filed: 02/09/2017

Page: 3 of 3

months of imprisonment and is only 7 months longer than the sentence that he
requested.
AFFIRMED.

3