United States v. Cadrious DaShun Batts , 615 F. App'x 941 ( 2015 )

Case: 15-10730 Date Filed: 09/17/2015 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-10730
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 7:14-cr-00248-LSC-TMP-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CADRIOUS DASHUN BATTS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
________________________
(September 17, 2015)
Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 15-10730 Date Filed: 09/17/2015 Page: 2 of 4
Cadrious Dashun Batts appeals his 240-month sentence, imposed after
convictions for two counts of armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 2113(a), (d), and one count of brandishing a firearm by a convicted felon, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). He argues his sentence is
(1) procedurally unreasonable because the district court did not adequately explain
its rationale for imposing an upward variance of 79 percent for his armed bank
robbery convictions,1 and (2) substantively unreasonable because the district court
did not properly weigh and consider the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.
Upon review, we affirm.
We review the reasonableness of a sentence for an abuse of discretion. Gall
v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). We review Batts’s arguments for plain
error because he failed to contest the procedural or substantive reasonableness of
his sentence before the district court. See United States v. McNair, 605 F.3d 1152,
1222 (11th Cir. 2010). Plain error occurs when there is: (1) an error; (2) that is
plain; (3) that affects substantial rights; and (4) that seriously affects the fairness,
integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id.
1
The Guidelines range for Batts’s armed robbery convictions was 70-87 months. The
district court sentenced Batts to 156 months’ imprisonment for the armed robbery convictions, to
be served concurrently. The district court added a mandatory 84-month consecutive sentence of
imprisonment for Batts’s brandishing conviction.
2
Case: 15-10730 Date Filed: 09/17/2015 Page: 3 of 4
A. Procedural Unreasonableness
Assuming, without deciding, that there was error, Batts has not established
the error was plain because there is no binding precedent directly resolving
whether the district court must do more than recite in rote fashion a laundry list of
§ 3553(a) factors, without any reference to specific facts, to impose an upward
variance of this magnitude. 2 See United States v. Castro, 455 F.3d 1249, 1253
(11th Cir. 2006) (“When the explicit language of a statute or rule does not
specifically resolve an issue, there can be no plain error where there is no
precedent from the Supreme Court or this Court directly resolving it.” (quotation
omitted)); United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1195 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc)
(“No member of this Court has ever before indicated that a sentencing judge is
required to articulate his findings and reasoning with great detail or in any detail
2
The district’s entire explanation for the upward variance was as follows:
My obligation, as I have said before, is to sentence the defendant to a sentence
which is sufficient but not more than necessary to accomplish the sentencing
goals set forth in the federal statutes. I do not believe that a mid-range sentence is
appropriate in this circumstance. I am, however, going to sentence the defendant
to a sentence of 156 months as to counts one and three. Those two counts will run
concurrent with each other. And 84 months as to count two, for a total sentence
of 240 months. So the 84 months will run consecutive; count two will run
consecutive to counts one and three.
Total sentence will be 240 months. I believe this is appropriate when I
consider the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and
characteristics of the defendant, as well as the need to protect the public, reflect
the seriousness of the offense, to deter this type of criminal conduct, and to
protect the public from further crimes from this particular defendant.
3
Case: 15-10730 Date Filed: 09/17/2015 Page: 4 of 4
for that matter.”). The district court’s sentence therefore was not plainly
procedurally unreasonable.
B. Substantive Unreasonableness
Assuming, without deciding, that there was error, the district court did not
plainly err in sentencing Batts to 240-months’ imprisonment. This Court has no
controlling precedent holding that, in a sufficiently similar factual scenario, an
upward departure of this magnitude was substantively unreasonable. See United
States v. Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d 1249, 1287 (11th Cir. 2015) (Wilson, J.,
dissenting) (“We have never vacated a sentence because it was too high, imposing
a sentencing on remand. By contrast, on numerous occasions, we have vacated
sentences because they were too low and imposed a sentencing floor.”).
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
4