Case: 19-11895 Date Filed: 06/26/2020 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 19-11895
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 9:18-cr-80194-DMM-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RONNIE MONTSDEOCA,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(June 26, 2020)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, JILL PRYOR, and TJOFLAT, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 19-11895 Date Filed: 06/26/2020 Page: 2 of 4
Ronnie Montsdeoca appeals his 240-month sentence for bank robbery and
attempted bank robbery. He argues on appeal that the District Court erred by
failing to file a written statement of reasons justifying its upward variance. Such a
statement is required by 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2).
We review a claim concerning a district court’s violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(c)(2) de novo, regardless of whether the argument was presented before the
district court. See United States v. Parks,
823 F.3d 990, 996 (11th Cir. 2016). In
reviewing a sentence, we apply a harmless error standard — any error, defect,
irregularity, or variance that does not affect substantial rights is harmless and must
be disregarded. Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a).
When a defendant is sentenced, the district court must state in open court the
reasons for its imposition of the particular sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c). If the
sentence exceeds the advisory guideline range, the court must give the specific
reasons for the sentence imposed, which also must be stated with specificity in a
written statement of reasons form.
Id. § 3553(c)(2). The court should state enough
reasons to satisfy the appellate court that it has considered the parties’ arguments
and has a justifiable basis for exercising its discretion to vary upward. Rita v.
United States,
551 U.S. 338, 356,
127 S. Ct. 2456, 2468 (2007).
2
Case: 19-11895 Date Filed: 06/26/2020 Page: 3 of 4
Here, Montsdeoca’s imposed sentence was 240 months, which was an
upward variance from his Guidelines sentencing range of 168 to 210 months. 1 The
District Court erred by failing to provide a written statement of reasons form for its
upward variance. However, the error was harmless, as the Court sufficiently
explained its reasoning during sentencing to allow for meaningful appellate review.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2); United States v. Suarez,
939 F.2d 929, 934 (11th Cir.
1991); United States v. Delvecchio,
920 F.2d 810, 813 (11th Cir. 1991). The court
orally stated several reasons for Montsdeoca’s above-guideline sentence —
principally, the length and severity of his criminal record and his demonstrated
recidivism even after a previous sentence for bank robbery. In doing so, the Court
demonstrated that it had thoroughly considered the § 3553(a) factors and
determined that those factors justified the degree of the variance. See United
States v. Pugh,
515 F.3d 1179, 1190 (11th Cir. 2008).
Further, Montsdeoca fails to point to any specific way in which he has been
harmed by the District Court’s failure to prepare a written § 3553(c)(2) report.
Generally, the harm incurred by the defendant when a district court fails to prepare
a written report is that it is not available for the Bureau of Prisons’ review, which is
what Montsdeoca argues has occurred in this case. See United States v.
1
Montsdeoca does not challenge the substantive reasonableness of the imposed sentence
on appeal.
3
Case: 19-11895 Date Filed: 06/26/2020 Page: 4 of 4
Massengill, 319 F. App’x 879, 884 (11th Cir. 2009). However, Montsdeoca’s
extensive criminal history, which was the primary basis for the District Court’s
decision to vary upward, is readily available to the Bureau of Prisons through the
presentence investigation report and other records. For these reasons, any error by
the court in not stating its specific reasons in written form was harmless because it
did not affect Montsdeoca’s substantial rights. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a).
Accordingly, we affirm Montsdeoca’s sentence.
AFFIRMED.
4
