USA v. Sherman Wimberly
Per Curiam OPINION filed : The district court's judgment is AFFIRMED, decision not for publication. Damon J. Keith, Helene N. White and Jane Branstetter Stranch, Circuit Judges.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 13a0606n.06
Jun 26, 2013
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
SHERMAN GEORGE WIMBERLY,
DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
BEFORE: KEITH, WHITE, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. Defendant-Appellant Sherman George Wimberly appeals his 186-month
sentence. We affirm.
Wimberly pled guilty without a plea agreement to one count of armed robbery of a credit
union and one count of discharging a firearm during a crime of violence (R.E. 27). Wimberly’s
conviction for discharging a firearm during a crime of violence carried a mandatory minimum
sentence of 120 months, consecutive to any other sentence, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii).
The Presentence Investigation Report calculated Wimberly’s guidelines range for armed robbery at
63 to 78 months. At sentencing, defense counsel argued for a reduced sentence based on Wimberly’s
mental-health issues (R.E. 40). Declining to depart or vary downward, the district court sentenced
Wimberly to 66 months’ imprisonment for the armed robbery, consecutive to 120 months for the
discharge of the firearm (R.E. 37).
United States v. Wimberly
Wimberly moved to hold this appeal in abeyance pending the Supreme Court’s decision in
Alleyne v. United States, which has since issued. ---S. Ct.----, No. 11-9335, 2013 WL 2922116 (June
17, 2013). Alleyne held that a jury must determine facts required to support a mandatory minimum
sentence. Id. at *7. However, the holding of Alleyne is irrelevant to this case because Wimberly
entered a guilty plea and specifically admitted discharging a firearm during the credit-union robbery
(R.E. 39, p. 8), the fact used to support his mandatory minimum sentence.
Wimberly argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable based on his serious
physical- and mental-health issues. “A sentence is substantively unreasonable if the district court
selects a sentence arbitrarily, bases the sentence on impermissible factors, fails to consider relevant
sentencing factors, or gives an unreasonable amount of weight to any pertinent factor.” United States
v. Camiscione, 591 F.3d 823, 832 (6th Cir. 2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
A within-guidelines sentence is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness. United States
v. Bolds, 511 F.3d 568, 581 (6th Cir. 2007). We review the reasonableness of a sentence imposed
in a criminal case for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Freeman, 640 F.3d 180, 185 (6th Cir.
2011). Wimberly acknowledges that his sentence was within the guidelines range, but he argues that
his serious physical and mental health issues warranted a sentence lower than the guidelines range.
Wimberly’s alleged physical issues of migraines, hemorrhoids, herpes, back pain, and arthritis are
not unusually serious, and counsel did not press that argument at sentencing. His mental-health
issues include depression, sleep disorder, bi-polar disorder, panic attacks, anxiety, suicidal ideations,
systhymic disorder, anti-social personality, and borderline personality disorder. Wimberly does not
argue that the district court’s sentence was arbitrary or that it was based on impermissible factors.
United States v. Wimberly
And he cannot argue that the district court failed to consider his mental-health issues. The district
court expressed concern over Wimberly’s mental health and included recommendations for diagnosis
and treatment in the sentence (R.E. 40, pp. 8, 10-11). The fact that the district court could have
imposed a shorter sentence is insufficient to disturb the judgment. United States v. Smith, 516 F.3d
473, 478 (6th Cir. 2008).
Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is affirmed.
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?