USA v. Skide Felix

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Skide Felix. 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: 16-17586

Date Filed: 08/10/2017

Page: 1 of 5

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-17586
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:16-cr-20373-JAL-3

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
SKIDE FELIX,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(August 10, 2017)
Before MARCUS, WILSON, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 16-17586

Date Filed: 08/10/2017

Page: 2 of 5

Skide Felix appeals his total 61-month sentence, imposed at the low-end of
the advisory guideline range, after pleading guilty to one count of conspiracy to
commit access device fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(b)(2), one count of
use of unauthorized access devices, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(2), and one
count of aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1). The
district court sentenced Felix to 37 months each as to Counts 1 and 4, to be served
concurrently, and 24 months as to Count 7, a mandatory consecutive sentence. On
appeal, Felix argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. After careful
consideration of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm.
Between November 2015 and February 2016, Felix and his codefendant
stole $12,026 using fraudulent credit cards and 1,127 pieces of personal identifying
information and fraudulent credit-card making equipment were found in Felix’s
home. Felix argues that his 61-month sentence is substantively unreasonable
because the district court failed to correctly weigh the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors
in light of the disparity between the actual loss amount of $12,026 and the intended
loss amount more than $600,000.1 Felix also argues that the district court failed to
give enough weight to his history and characteristics, including his age, lack of
significant prior criminal history, lack of substantial financial gain from the crime,
and his remorse.
1

Per USSG § 2B1.1, comment. N.3(F)(i) each access device found carried a minimum loss
amount of $500.
2

Case: 16-17586

Date Filed: 08/10/2017

Page: 3 of 5

We review “the reasonableness of a sentence [imposed by the district court]
under a deferential abuse of discretion standard.” United States v. Alvarado, 808
F.3d 474, 496 (11th Cir. 2015). We “first ensure that the district court committed
no significant procedural error,” such as improperly calculating the guideline range
or inadequately explaining the chosen sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552
U.S. 38, 51, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). We then “consider the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence imposed,” taking into account the totality of the
circumstances and the § 3553(a) factors. Id. The party challenging the
reasonableness of the sentence “bears the burden of showing that it is unreasonable
in light of the record and the § 3553(a) factors.” Alvarado, 808 F.3d at 496.
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. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2).
In imposing a particular sentence, 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, and the applicable guideline range. 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a)(1), (3)–(4).

3

Case: 16-17586

Date Filed: 08/10/2017

Page: 4 of 5

“The weight accorded to any given § 3553(a) factor is a matter within the
district court’s discretion and this Court will not substitute its judgment in
weighing the relevant factors.” Alvarado, 808 F.3d at 496. Nevertheless, a district
court imposes a substantively unreasonable sentence when it “(1) fails to afford
consideration to relevant factors that were due significant weight, (2) gives
significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or” (3) commits a clear error
in judgment by balancing proper factors unreasonably. United States v. Irey, 612
F.3d 1160, 1189 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc).
We ordinarily expect a sentence imposed within the guideline range to be
reasonable. Alvarado, 808 F.3d at 496. Additionally, a sentence imposed well
below the statutory maximum penalty is another indicator of a reasonable sentence.
See United States v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319, 1324 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam).
We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in balancing
the § 3553(a) factors. The district court explicitly considered the mitigating factors
Felix presented, but found that they were outweighed by other § 3553(a) factors.
The court specifically noted that the presence of an embosser machine and an
encoder, combined with the seriousness of the crime and the need for deterrence
justified Felix’s sentence.
Additionally, Felix’s sentence of 37 months for Counts 1 and 4 was at the
low-end of the guideline range, the kind of sentence we ordinarily expect to be
4

Case: 16-17586

Date Filed: 08/10/2017

Page: 5 of 5

reasonable. Alvarado, 808 F.3d at 496. Moreover, the statutory maximums for
Counts 1 and 4 were five and ten years, respectively. Felix’s sentence of 37
months for Counts 1 and 4 falls well below the statutory maximum, suggesting
substantive reasonableness. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d at 1324. Felix’s total 61-month
sentence, including the mandatory 24-month consecutive sentence for Count 7,
was sufficient, but not greater than necessary to account for the purposes of the
§ 3553(a) factors. We affirm.
AFFIRMED.

5