United States v. Lawson, Clifford K. , 210 F. App'x 519 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED ORDER
    Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53
    United States Court of Appeals
    For the Seventh Circuit
    Chicago, Illinois 60604
    Argued November 9, 2006
    Decided December 15, 2006
    Before
    Hon. DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge
    Hon. ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge
    Hon. TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge
    No. 06-2323
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                     Appeal from the United States
    Plaintiff-Appellee,                       District Court for the Northern District of
    Indiana, South Bend Division
    v.
    No. 05 CR 137
    CLIFFORD K. LAWSON, JR.,
    Defendant-Appellant.                     Robert L. Miller, Jr.,
    Chief Judge.
    ORDER
    Clifford Lawson, a previously convicted child molester, pleaded guilty to
    being a felon in possession of three firearms. The district court considered the 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a) factors and sentenced Lawson at the low end of the sentencing
    guidelines range. On appeal, Lawson challenges the sentence, arguing that the
    judge did not give adequate consideration to the § 3553(a) factors and imposed a
    sentence longer than necessary to achieve the goals of § 3553(a). We affirm.
    Lawson pleaded guilty without a written plea agreement to two counts of
    possessing firearms as a felon under 
    18 U.S.C. §§ 922
    (g)(1) and to one count of
    possessing an unregistered sawed-off shotgun in violation of 
    26 U.S.C. §§ 5841
    ,
    No. 06-2323                                                                    Page 2
    5845, 5861(d) and 5871. The weapons were seized after police responded to a 911
    call from one of Lawson’s friends, reporting that Lawson made suicidal threats and
    had a sawed-off shotgun.
    Prior to sentencing, Lawson filed a sentencing memorandum in which he
    requested a sentence without prison time, in light of his advancing age (52), family
    obligations, and limited criminal history. At the ensuing hearing, he emphasized
    that a guidelines sentence was greater than necessary to protect the public or
    reflect the seriousness of the crime; he explained that he was the primary caretaker
    of his mother, was unlikely to commit another offense because of his age, had a
    successful and extensive work history, posed little danger to society because he kept
    his weapons in his home, and had a limited criminal history, including only one
    conviction thirteen years earlier.
    The court then adopted the probation officer’s guidelines computation, and
    sentenced Lawson to 46 months in prison—the low end of the advisory range.
    Among the factors noted by the court were Lawson’s prior conviction for child
    molestation, his possession of multiple firearms off and on for more than 10 years,
    and the threats Lawson made against police and the friends who had made the 911
    call. Further, the court doubted that Lawson’s excuses for his possession of the
    weapons were truthful and found that he presented a “modest rather than minimal”
    threat to the public.
    On appeal, Lawson argues that his sentence is unreasonable because the
    district court relied too heavily upon the guidelines range to provide the “best
    indication of the seriousness of the offense” and the “need to promote respect for
    law.” Lawson contends that, because of its reliance on the guidelines for these
    factors, the court conducted a “sham analysis” of the 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
     factors and
    improperly “used the guidelines as justification for the various purposes of
    sentencing set forth in § 3553.”
    Lawson’s sentence falls within the properly calculated guidelines range and
    is therefore presumed reasonable. United States v. Mykytiuk, 
    415 F.3d 606
    , 608
    (7th Cir. 2005). Indeed, we have also stated that the proper guidelines range may
    serve as a benchmark for trial judges. United States v. Hankton, 
    463 F.3d 626
    , 629
    (7th Cir. 2006); United States v. Wurzinger, 
    467 F.3d 649
    , 650-51 (7th Cir. 2006).
    Although the Supreme Court recently granted a writ of certiorari to consider
    whether according a presumption of reasonableness to within-guidelines sentences
    is consistent with United States v. Booker, 
    543 U.S. 220
     (2005), see United States v.
    Rita, No. 05-4674, 
    2006 WL 1144508
     (4th Cir. May 1, 2006), cert. granted, 75
    U.S.L.W 3246 (U.S. Nov. 3, 2006) (No. 06-5754), the resolution of that case would
    not affect our conclusion that the district court arrived at a reasonable sentence
    after meaningful consideration of the sentencing factors in 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a). See
    No. 06-2323                                                                      Page 3
    United States v. Laufle, 
    433 F.3d 981
    , 988 (7th Cir. 2006). The district court
    thoroughly explained the considerations relevant to its sentencing decision,
    including Lawson’s criminal history, see § 3553(a)(1), the ongoing nature of his
    offense, see §§ 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(A), Lawson’s threats after the police seized his guns,
    see § 3553(a)(2)(A), and its conclusion that Lawson posed a danger to the public, see
    § 3553(a)(2)(C). The court rejected Lawson’s request for a shorter sentence because
    he was his mother’s caretaker, based on the guidelines’ admonition that “family ties
    and responsibilities are not ordinarily relevant” in imposing a sentence below the
    guidelines range. U.S.S.G. § 5H1.6. And Lawson’s arguments regarding a lower
    recidivism rate based on his age and family obligations did not compel the district
    court to impose a sentence below the guidelines range, see Wurzinger, 467 F.3d at
    653.
    AFFIRMED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-2323

Citation Numbers: 210 F. App'x 519

Judges: Per Curiam

Filed Date: 12/15/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023