US v. Trevin Gibson
Filing
UNPUBLISHED AUTHORED OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:12-cr-00075-D-1; 4:12-cr-00075-D-2; 4:12-cr-00075-D-4. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999683750]. [14-4154, 14-4169, 14-4183]
Appeal: 14-4154
Doc: 91
Filed: 10/22/2015
Pg: 1 of 18
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4154
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TREVIN MAURICE GIBSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 14-4169
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL RONDALE GIBSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 14-4183
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
Appeal: 14-4154
Doc: 91
Filed: 10/22/2015
Pg: 2 of 18
DESHAUN ENTREA SPRUILL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Dever III,
Chief District Judge.
(4:12-cr-00075-D-1; 4:12-cr-00075-D-2;
4:12-cr-00075-D-4)
Argued:
September 17, 2015
Decided:
October 22, 2015
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished opinion.
Judge Keenan wrote
opinion, in which Judge Niemeyer and Judge Shedd joined.
the
ARGUED: Eric Joseph Brignac, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC
DEFENDER, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellants.
Yvonne
Victoria Watford-McKinney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Terry F. Rose,
Smithfield, North Carolina for Appellant Trevin Maurice Gibson.
Brian M. Aus, BRIAN AUS, ATTORNEY AT LAW, Durham, North
Carolina, for Appellant Michael Rondale Gibson.
Thomas G.
Walker,
United
States
Attorney,
Jennifer
P.
May-Parker,
Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
Appeal: 14-4154
Doc: 91
Filed: 10/22/2015
Pg: 3 of 18
BARBARA MILANO KEENAN, Circuit Judge:
Deshaun
Spruill,
Michael
Gibson,
and
Trevin
Gibson
(collectively, the defendants) each pleaded guilty to two counts
of using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime
of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1).
consolidated
appeals,
whether
Spruill’s
whether
Michael
substantively
they
present
sentence
is
Gibson’s
following
procedurally
and
unreasonable;
the
Trevin
and
(3)
issues:
(1)
unreasonable;
(2)
Gibson’s
whether
In their
sentences
Trevin
are
Gibson’s
sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation
of
the
Eighth
Amendment.
Upon
review
of
the
defendants’
sentences, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
I.
The defendants participated in a number of armed robberies
between September 2011 and January 2012, which occurred at “fast
food” restaurants throughout the eastern part of North Carolina.
Trevin Gibson and Michael Gibson participated in, respectively,
ten and five robberies.
Deshaun Spruill participated in ten
robberies and one additional robbery attempt.
In each of these robberies, various defendants, with their
faces
concealed
by
hooded
sweatshirts,
bandanas,
or
masks,
entered a fast food restaurant brandishing firearms and knives.
One defendant escorted the store manager at gunpoint to open the
restaurant’s safe, while the remaining defendants stayed in the
3
Appeal: 14-4154
Doc: 91
front
of
Filed: 10/22/2015
the
registers.
The
restaurant
Pg: 4 of 18
and
government
removed
described
cash
the
from
robbery
the
spree
cash
as
a
“reign of terror” across multiple jurisdictions, which required
the
use
of
substantial
law
enforcement
resources
and
the
coordination of multiple law enforcement agencies.
In June 2012, the defendants were charged with 16 counts of
robbery under the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951, and 16 counts of
using firearms during the robberies, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1). 1
Under
their
respective
plea
agreements,
each
defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of using or carrying a
firearm during a crime of violence under Section 924(c)(1), in
exchange for the government dismissing the other charges.
These
counts of conviction carried a mandatory minimum sentence of
five years’ imprisonment for the first offense and 25 years’
imprisonment for the second offense, to be served consecutively.
See 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A), (C), (D).
The government and each
defendant agreed that the advisory guideline sentence for each
defendant was the statutory minimum of 30 years’ imprisonment.
The district court accepted the defendants’ guilty pleas, and
1
Five defendants were accused of participating in this
spree. Codefendant Marcus Garrett did not file an appeal of his
conviction or his sentence.
This Court dismissed codefendant
Prentise Wilkins’ appeal pursuant to a valid waiver of his
appellate rights.
See United States v. Wilkins, 604 F. App’x.
322, 323 (4th Cir. 2015).
4
Appeal: 14-4154
Doc: 91
Filed: 10/22/2015
Pg: 5 of 18
found each of the three defendants guilty of the two firearms
charges.
Spruill
received
a
396-month
sentence,
which
upwardly
departed from the advisory guideline sentence of 360 months.
Spruill
sentence
argued
at
allowed
the
by
sentencing
statute
would
hearing
be
that
sufficient
the
minimum
punishment,
because he had a difficult family background and no criminal
record, had graduated from high school and enrolled in community
college,
had
committed
to
enlisting
in
accepted responsibility for his actions.
explained
that
it
had
“considered
all
the
Army,
and
had
The district court
arguments
[Spruill’s]
lawyer [had] made,” but found that other factors warranted an
upward departure.
The court found that Spruill had participated
in eight robberies and one attempted robbery, in addition to the
two
robberies
forming
the
basis
of
Spruill’s
firearms
convictions.
The court explained that the robbery spree “terrorized” the
victims who were “making minimum wage” and “trying to live an
honest life,” and attributed Spruill’s criminal conduct to his
own “greed.”
During the sentencing hearing, the district court
commented that Spruill had exhibited a “smirk,” which indicated
that Spruill felt “no remorse at all.”
Based on these factors,
the district court concluded that “society needs to be protected
from [Spruill].”
The court relied on the dismissed robbery and
5
Appeal: 14-4154
Doc: 91
Filed: 10/22/2015
Pg: 6 of 18
firearms counts to apply U.S.S.G. § 5K2.21, which allowed the
court to upwardly depart “to reflect the actual seriousness of
the offense based on conduct underlying a charge dismissed as
part of a plea agreement.”
In sentencing Spruill for the first
count
court
of
conviction,
the
upwardly
departed
from
the
guideline sentence of 60 months, and imposed a sentence of 96
months.
On the second count, the court imposed the guideline
sentence of 300 months’ imprisonment.
The
district
court
also
sentencing Michael Gibson.
applied
an
upward
departure
in
At the sentencing hearing, Michael
Gibson argued that the guideline sentence was an appropriate
sentence based on his youth, his substance abuse problems, and
his
acceptance
argument,
the
of
responsibility.
government
asked
the
Disagreeing
court
to
with
this
consider
a
photograph from the September 3, 2011 robbery, which depicted a
victim whose countenance reflected an “absolute vision of fear.”
The
district
court
considered
the
violent
nature
of
the
robberies, the vulnerability of the victims, Michael Gibson’s
criminal history, and the dismissed robbery and firearms counts,
and found that “serious punishment” was required “to reflect the
serious nature of his crimes” and to “protect society.”
The
district court cited the dismissed robbery and firearms charges
and applied a Section 5K2.21 upward departure from the guideline
sentence of 60 months and sentenced Michael Gibson to 132 months
6
Appeal: 14-4154
Doc: 91
Filed: 10/22/2015
Pg: 7 of 18
on the first firearms count.
sentence
of
300
months’
The court imposed the guideline
imprisonment
on
the
second
firearms
count.
The district court imposed a greater sentence on Trevin
Gibson than the sentences received by any of his codefendants.
When Trevin Gibson participated in the first two robberies, he
was still in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), serving
a
sentence
sporting
in
goods
home
detention
store
and
for
stealing
breaking
12
and
entering
firearms.
After
a
his
release from BOP custody, while on supervised release, Trevin
Gibson participated in eight more robberies, bringing his total
participation to ten robberies.
convicted
of
two
firearms
Ultimately, Trevin Gibson was
charges
arising
from
robberies
committed while he was on supervised release.
At his sentencing hearing, Trevin Gibson argued that the
guideline
especially
sentence
of
30
considering
years’
the
imprisonment
likely
release in his prior criminal case.
was
revocation
of
sufficient,
supervised
However, he did not offer
any particular mitigating reason that would have justified a
more
lenient
sentence
Gibson or Spruill.
than
those
of
terror”
imposed
on
Michael
At the hearing, the government gave a vivid
description of the robbery spree.
“reign
already
that
these
In addition to describing the
robberies
caused
and
the
substantial law enforcement resources expended, the government
7
Appeal: 14-4154
Doc: 91
highlighted
Filed: 10/22/2015
Trevin
participation
in
Gibson’s
some
of
Pg: 8 of 18
prior
the
criminal
robberies
history
while
and
still
his
in
BOP
custody.
The district court found that Trevin Gibson’s commission of
the first two robberies while in BOP custody, and his commission
of eight more robberies while on supervised release, reflected a
complete lack of respect for the law.
In addition, the district
court discussed the severity of the robberies, their effect on
the victims, and the likelihood that Trevin Gibson would engage
in recidivist conduct.
education,
and
“the
Taking into account Trevin Gibson’s age,
entire
record
in
this
applied a Section 5K2.21 upward departure.
case,”
the
court
As a result, Trevin
Gibson received a sentence of 216 months’ imprisonment on the
first firearms count, increased from the guideline sentence of
60
months.
He
also
received
the
guideline
sentence
of
300
months’ imprisonment on the second firearms count, which yielded
a cumulative consecutive sentence of 516 months’ imprisonment
for the two offenses.
This appeal followed.
II.
The defendants each present different arguments regarding
their respective sentences and the reasons why those sentences
should
be
vacated
and
the
cases
remanded
for
resentencing.
Accordingly, we will address those arguments separately.
8
Appeal: 14-4154
Doc: 91
Filed: 10/22/2015
Pg: 9 of 18
A.
Deshaun Spruill argues on appeal that the district court
imposed a procedurally unreasonable sentence, in that the court
failed to address directly the arguments that Spruill raised at
sentencing.
Spruill asks that we adopt the Seventh Circuit’s
holding in United States v. Villegas-Miranda, and conclude that
a
district
court
must
address
all
the
sentencing
arguments
raised by a defendant that are “not so weak as not to merit
discussion.”
579 F.3d 798, 802 (7th Cir. 2009) (quoting United
States v. Cunningham, 429 F.3d 673, 679 (7th Cir. 2005)).
Assuming,
without
deciding,
that
we
would
adopt
such
a
rule, the rule still would be inapplicable to the arguments that
Spruill raised at his sentencing hearing.
The Seventh Circuit
cases on which Spruill relies require only that a district court
explain its rejection of a particular legal principle raised by
a defendant.
See Villegas-Miranda, 579 F.3d at 803–04 (holding
that a district court must address an argument that a defendant
is
entitled
to
credit
for
time
served
in
state
custody);
Cunningham, 429 F.3d at 679 (vacating a district court sentence
for
failing
to
address
the
defendant’s
argument
for
“diminished capacity” departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.13).
however,
particular
Spruill
legal
did
not
principle
advance
or
arguments
doctrine.
invoking
Rather,
a
Here,
any
Spruill’s
factual arguments, which included his enrollment in community
9
Appeal: 14-4154
Doc: 91
Filed: 10/22/2015
Pg: 10 of 18
college and his commitment to enlist in the Army, concerned the
appropriate
weight
to
be
accorded
the
circumstances
personal history under the Section 3553(a) factors.
of
his
Therefore,
we do not give further consideration to Spruill’s request that
we adopt certain procedures imposed by the Seventh Circuit, and
turn to consider his Section 3553(a) arguments under our own
circuit precedent.
We
have
held
that
a
district
court
must
consider
the
statutory factors and explain the reasons for its sentence, but
that the court need not explicitly reference Section 3553(a) or
discuss on the record every statutory factor.
Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006).
United States v.
The district court
is required only to make an individualized assessment that is
adequate to allow meaningful appellate review.
United States v.
Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009).
Accordingly, we
infer
that
the
district
court
has
considered
all
relevant
arguments presented at the sentencing hearing, especially when
the court states on the record that it has done so.
See Rita v.
United States, 551 U.S. 338, 358–59 (2007) (holding that the
sentencing judge is not required to state explicitly that he has
heard
and
considered
all
arguments
when
“[t]he
record
makes
clear that the sentencing judge listened to each argument”).
At
Spruill’s
sentencing,
the
district
court
expressly
stated that it had considered “all arguments [Spruill’s] lawyer
10
Appeal: 14-4154
Doc: 91
Filed: 10/22/2015
Pg: 11 of 18
has made” and “all [Section 3553(a)] factors” before sentencing
Spruill.
Those statements by the district court demonstrate
that the court considered and rejected Spruill’s arguments.
at 358.
Id.
In addition, the court found that the “smirk” Spruill
exhibited before the court was evidence of his lack of remorse,
and indicated a need for incarceration to deter Spruill from
engaging in future criminal activity.
When the district court
applied an upward departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.21, the court
primarily relied on the nature and seriousness of the dismissed
robbery and firearms counts.
Considered as a whole, this record
shows that the district court made an individualized assessment
and gave an adequate explanation of its reasons for imposing
Spruill’s particular sentence.
thus
conclude
that
Spruill’s
See Carter, 564 F.3d at 330.
sentence
was
not
We
procedurally
unreasonable.
B.
Michael
Gibson
argues
that
his
sentence
imprisonment was substantively unreasonable.
of
432
months’
He contends that
the district court failed to consider his youth as a mitigating
factor,
history,
overstated
and
determining
the
failed
the
seriousness
to
consider
likelihood
criminal acts if released.
that
of
the
he
his
youthful
“effect
would
of
commit
criminal
aging”
in
additional
We address each of these arguments
in turn.
11
Appeal: 14-4154
Doc: 91
This
Filed: 10/22/2015
Court
reviews
the
Pg: 12 of 18
substantive
reasonableness
of
a
district court’s sentence for abuse of discretion, taking into
account
the
totality
of
the
circumstances.
Gall
v.
United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 56 (2007); United States v. Morace, 594
F.3d 340, 345–46 (4th Cir. 2010).
held
that
appellate
formulas
the
abuse-of-discretion
courts
reject
the
evaluating
when
the
non-guideline sentence.
We
The Supreme Court also has
conclude
that
use
standard
of
rigid
substantive
requires
that
percentage-based
reasonableness
of
a
Gall, 552 U.S. at 47–49.
Michael
Gibson
has
not
shown
that
the
district court failed to consider his relative youth during the
sentencing hearing.
The district court stated on the record
that it had “considered all arguments [Michael Gibson’s] lawyer
has made.”
court
This record is sufficient to show that the district
actually
Gibson’s
considered
relative
youth
the
presented
argument
at
the
concerning
Michael
sentencing
hearing.
See Rita, 551 U.S. at 358–59; see also discussion supra Part
II.A.
Additionally, we conclude that Michael Gibson’s reliance on
Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 569–70 (2005), and United States
v. Howard, 773 F.3d 519, 531 (4th Cir. 2014), is unavailing.
Unlike the defendant in Simmons, who was sentenced to the death
penalty for acts committed as a juvenile, Michael Gibson was
sentenced
to
a
term
of
imprisonment,
12
and
received
an
upward
Appeal: 14-4154
Doc: 91
Filed: 10/22/2015
Pg: 13 of 18
departure, for crimes he committed at 19 years of age.
this
Court
in
Howard
cautioned
district
Although
courts
against
“focus[ing] extensively on a [juvenile criminal record] . . . at
the expense of a reasoned analysis of other pertinent factors,”
773 F.3d at 531, Michael Gibson’s criminal history only includes
one
crime
committed
before
his
eighteenth
birthday,
and
the
district court mentioned that marijuana offense only in passing
while
focusing
other
Section
supports
marijuana
a
on
his
3553(a)
conclusion
offense
“at
more
serious
factors.
that
the
other pertinent factors.”
adult
convictions
And
court
the
nothing
focused
expense
Id.
of
a
in
and
on
the
that
single
on
record
reasoned
analysis
of
Accordingly, we conclude that
the district court did not fail to consider Michael Gibson’s
youth as a factor in determining his appropriate sentence.
Michael
Gibson
next
argues
that
a
total
years would have been sufficient in his case.
sentence
of
30
He notes that if
he were given such a sentence he would be over 50 years old at
the time of his release, and that, generally, statistics show
that
the
offenders
incidence
over
45
years
(collecting studies).
Statistical
undermine
of
drops
old.
Howard,
See
significantly
773
F.3d
at
for
533
We are not persuaded by this argument.
correlations
the
recidivism
validity
among
of
large
a
populations
district
court’s
will
not
careful,
individualized assessment of a particular defendant convicted of
13
Appeal: 14-4154
Doc: 91
Filed: 10/22/2015
a particular crime.
Pg: 14 of 18
We therefore turn to review the factors
that the district court actually cited when sentencing Michael
Gibson.
The district court emphasized the serious nature of the
robberies,
the
vulnerability
of
the
victims,
and
Michael
Gibson’s failure to “turn away from a criminal lifestyle” after
his prior convictions.
Michael Gibson’s sentence of 432 months
for the two firearms convictions reflects a 20-percent increase
over
the
combined
guideline
sentence
for
both
counts.
His
attempt to focus solely on the district court’s greater upward
departure
on
substantive
totality
of
formulation.”
the
first
count
reasonableness
the
ignores
be
circumstances
Gall’s
evaluated
without
552 U.S. at 47–51.
by
directive
that
examining
the
“rigid
mathematical
Moreover, without a plea
agreement, Michael Gibson would have faced a statutory minimum
of an additional 75 years’ imprisonment for the three dismissed
firearms counts that provided part of the basis for the Section
5K2.21 departure.
See 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(C).
Therefore, we
conclude that the imposition of a six-year upward departure for
the three dismissed firearms counts and the five robbery counts
was not an abuse of discretion, and that Michael Gibson’s 36-
14
Appeal: 14-4154
Doc: 91
Filed: 10/22/2015
Pg: 15 of 18
year sentence is substantively reasonable under the totality of
the circumstances. 2
C.
Trevin
Gibson
argues
that
his
sentence
of
43
years
is
substantively unreasonable and violates the Eighth Amendment’s
prohibition
against
cruel
and
unusual
punishment.
We
first
analyze the substantive reasonableness of the sentence before
turning to the constitutional question.
Trevin
Gibson’s
central
contention
regarding
substantive
reasonableness is that the factual record was insufficient to
support the 13-year upward departure imposed by the district
court.
As
discussed
above,
we
review
the
substantive
reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of discretion under an
analysis of the totality of the circumstances.
Gall, 552 U.S.
at 51.
The district court found that Trevin Gibson’s participation
in
the
robbery
spree
while
still
serving
a
sentence
in
BOP
custody and on supervised release reflected “utter and sheer
disrespect for the law,” and indicated a high risk of recidivism
2
Because the district court did not err in calculating
Michael Gibson’s advisory guideline sentence, and we determine
that the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying
a Section 5K2.21 departure, we need not address Michael Gibson’s
argument that the court’s alternative variant sentence is
substantively unreasonable.
15
Appeal: 14-4154
Doc: 91
Filed: 10/22/2015
Pg: 16 of 18
if he were to receive only the minimum punishment afforded by
statute.
The court also discussed Trevin Gibson’s participation
in eight other robberies in the same spree, and concluded that
“these violent, despicable acts” warranted an upward departure
in sentence.
would
have
Trevin Gibson’s eight dismissed firearms counts
carried
a
mandatory
minimum
of
200
years
of
additional imprisonment, see 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(C), but the
district court applied only a 13-year upward departure under
Section 5K2.21.
Accordingly,
we
conclude
that
the
district
court listed sufficient reasons, complete with citations to the
record, to support the substantive reasonableness of the upward
departure.
Trevin
sentence
Gibson
already
argues,
accounted
nevertheless,
for
his
that
criminal
the
guideline
history
and
the
nature of the typical armed robbery, with the result that the
district court unreasonably “double counted” those factors in
imposing the upward departure of 13 years.
However, contrary to
Trevin Gibson’s characterization of the sentencing proceedings,
the
district
court
only
counted
these
factors
once,
because
neither factor raised the advisory guideline sentence from the
statutory mandatory minimum.
And, in any event, the sentencing
guidelines permit double counting unless expressly prohibited,
which was not the case here.
See United States v. Rivera-
Santana, 668 F.3d 95, 102 (4th Cir. 2012) (holding that a single
16
Appeal: 14-4154
Doc: 91
Filed: 10/22/2015
Pg: 17 of 18
prior conviction may properly be used to calculate two upward
departures, an upward variance, and a sixteen-level enhancement,
because the guidelines do not prohibit such multiple counting);
see also United States v. Crawford, 18 F.3d 1173, 1179 (4th Cir.
1994) (holding that “double counting is permissible under the
guidelines except where it is expressly prohibited”) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
Accordingly, we conclude that Trevin
Gibson’s sentence is substantively reasonable.
Trevin Gibson also argues that his sentence of 43 years
constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of the
Eighth Amendment.
We disagree.
Although the Eighth Amendment requires proportionality in
punishment, the Supreme Court has made clear that the Eighth
Amendment
“forbids
only
extreme
disproportionate to the crime.”
sentences
that
are
grossly
Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48,
59–60 (2010) (emphasis added); see also United States v. Cobler,
748 F.3d 570, 575 (4th Cir. 2014).
And the Supreme Court has
identified only one such grossly disproportionate sentence of
imprisonment, in Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 303 (1983), in
which the defendant received a sentence of life imprisonment
without the possibility of parole for a single conviction for
passing a bad check in the amount of $100.
Indeed,
the
Supreme
Court
even
has
upheld
Id. at 281–82.
under
the
Eighth
Amendment a sentence of 25 years to life imprisonment for a
17
Appeal: 14-4154
Doc: 91
Filed: 10/22/2015
Pg: 18 of 18
single non-violent crime of shoplifting $1,200 worth of golf
clubs.
Ewing
v.
California,
538
U.S.
11,
18-20
(2003)
(plurality opinion).
In contrast, Trevin Gibson was sentenced to a term of 43
years’ imprisonment for two firearms offenses related to armed
robberies, which were part of a robbery spree involving multiple
violent crimes that “terrorized” several communities, and were
committed
while
he
was
in
home
detention
release for another serious firearms offense.
or
on
supervised
Trevin Gibson was
responsible for over $5,000 in victim losses attributable to his
crimes of conviction, and over $15,000 in victim losses related
to the dismissed robberies.
Therefore, we hold that, under the
Supreme Court’s proportionality decisions and our decision in
Cobler, Trevin Gibson’s sentence is not grossly disproportionate
to
his
criminal
reference
to
the
conclude
that
conduct,
two
his
even
counts
sentence
of
if
considered
conviction.
does
solely
with
Accordingly,
we
not
violate
the
Eighth
the
sentences
of
Deshaun
Amendment.
III.
For
these
reasons,
we
affirm
Spruill, Michael Gibson, and Trevin Gibson.
AFFIRMED
18
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?