USA v. Jackie Williams

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Jackie Williams. 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: 16-15078

Date Filed: 11/28/2017

Page: 1 of 5

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-15078
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:15-cr-00018-CAR-CHW-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JACKIE WILLIAMS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
________________________
(November 28, 2017)
Before MARCUS, ROSENBAUM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 16-15078

Date Filed: 11/28/2017

Page: 2 of 5

Jackie Williams pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1343. Williams appeals her 70-month sentence, imposed as a variance
above the guideline range of 33 to 41 months. On appeal, Williams argues that
her sentence is procedurally and substantively unreasonable. First, Williams
argues that her sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court
failed to provide a sufficiently compelling justification for imposing an upward
variance. Second, Williams argues that her sentence is substantively unreasonable
because the district court improperly relied on only the deterrence factor under 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) in imposing her sentence.
This Court reviews the reasonableness of a sentence under a deferential
abuse of discretion standard of review. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41
(2007). The party challenging the sentence bears the burden of establishing that
the sentence is unreasonable. United States v. Tome, 611 F.3d 1371, 1378 (11th
Cir. 2010).
The reasonableness of a sentence is assessed using a two-step process. Gall,
552 U.S. at 51. First, this Court determines whether the district court committed
procedural error when sentencing the defendant, such as failing to consider the
§ 3553(a) factors, improperly calculating the guideline range, or inadequately
explaining the chosen sentence. Id. When the district court imposes a sentence
that deviates from the guideline range, it must provide a justification that is
2

Case: 16-15078

Date Filed: 11/28/2017

Page: 3 of 5

“sufficiently compelling to support the degree of the variance.” Id. at 50. Though
explanation of the sentence is required, the sentencing court is under no duty to
“articulate [its] findings and reasoning with great detail.” United States v. Irey,
612 F.3d 1160, 1195 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc). Rather, the district court “should
set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that [it] has considered the parties’
arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising [its] own legal decisionmaking
authority.” Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007).
Second, this Court examines whether the sentence is substantively
reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. The
district court must impose a sentence “sufficient, but not greater than necessary to
comply with the purposes” listed in 18 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. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). The district 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 unwarranted sentencing disparities, and the need to provide
restitution to victims. 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(1), (3)–(7). This Court commits the

3

Case: 16-15078

Date Filed: 11/28/2017

Page: 4 of 5

weight to be accorded any § 3553(a) factor to the discretion of the district court.
United States v. Barrington, 648 F.3d 1178, 1204 (11th Cir. 2011).
The district court did not impose a procedurally or substantively
unreasonable sentence when it sentenced Williams above the guideline range.
First, the court did not commit any procedural error in explaining its deviation
from the guideline range. The court explained that the guideline range did not
reflect the seriousness of Williams’s crime and was insufficient to deter her from
committing similar crimes in the future. The court further noted the statements
made by the victims of Williams’s crime and the substantial loss they had suffered.
By emphasizing the seriousness of Williams’s crime and the need to deter her from
committing similar crimes in the future, the district court set forth an explanation
that was sufficient to show that it “had a reasoned basis for exercising [its] own
legal decisionmaking authority.” Rita, 551 U.S. at 356. The reasons were also
sufficiently compelling to support the degree of the variance. Gall, 552 U.S. at 50.
Thus, the district court did not commit procedural error.
Further, the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable
sentence by improperly weighing the “deterrence” factor under § 3553(a). First,
the court found the need for deterrence especially important in this case
considering the scope and seriousness of Williams’s crime. Additionally, the court
noted that it was “terrible” how Williams took advantage of her victims. The court
4

Case: 16-15078

Date Filed: 11/28/2017

Page: 5 of 5

emphasized the victims’ extensive financial loss and indicated that, based on its
experience, it was unlikely that the victims would receive restitution. Accordingly,
the record indicates that the district court considered not only the need for
deterrence, but also other § 3553(a) factors, such as the seriousness of the crime,
the need to protect the public, and the need for restitution in imposing the upward
variance. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2), (7). Thus, the sentence was substantively
reasonable.
For the reasons set forth above, the district court’s sentencing decision falls
well within the range of reasonableness provided by the abuse-of-discretion
standard. Thus, we affirm Williams’s sentence.
AFFIRMED.

5