United States v. Mitchell Logan Reeves , 710 F. App'x 425 ( 2018 )

Case: 17-11499 Date Filed: 01/25/2018 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-11499
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:15-cr-00034-RWS-JCF-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MITCHELL LOGAN REEVES,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(January 25, 2018)
Before WILSON, MARTIN, and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 17-11499 Date Filed: 01/25/2018 Page: 2 of 3
Mitchell Reeves appeals his 104-month sentence for armed bank robbery
and brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence. He argues
that his below-guideline sentence was substantively unreasonable because the
district court ignored mitigating factors, including his lack of criminal history, drug
addiction, and traumatic childhood; placed too much emphasis on the seriousness
of the offense; and improperly speculated about the effect the offense may have
had on the bank teller.
We review the reasonableness of a sentence under the deferential abuse-of-
discretion standard. United States v. Tome, 611 F.3d 1371, 1378 (11th Cir. 2010).
The party challenging the sentence bears the burden of showing that the sentence is
unreasonable in light of the record and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Id.
The district court must impose a sentence “sufficient, but not greater than
necessary to comply with the purposes” of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2), including the
need to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, provide
just punishment for the offense, deter criminal conduct, and protect the public from
the defendant’s future criminal conduct. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). The court
must also consider the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and
characteristics of the defendant. Id. § 3553(a)(1). While the weight given to any
specific § 3553(a) factor is committed to the sound discretion of the district court,
United States v. Clay, 483 F.3d 739, 743 (11th Cir. 2007), the court abuses its
2
Case: 17-11499 Date Filed: 01/25/2018 Page: 3 of 3
discretion when it “(1) fails to afford consideration to relevant factors that were
due significant weight, (2) gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant
factor, or (3) commits a clear error of judgment in considering the proper factors.”
United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1189 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc). Although
we do not presume that a sentence falling within the guideline range is reasonable,
we ordinarily expect such a sentence to be reasonable. United States v. Hunt, 526
F.3d 739, 746 (11th Cir. 2008).
Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a 104-month
total sentence, which was below the guideline range and well below the statutory
maximum. The district court thoughtfully considered the mitigating factors,
including Reeves’s difficult upbringing, his drug addictions, his lack of criminal
history, and the support he received from family and friends. But it reasonably
relied on the seriousness of the offense, which included pointing a loaded gun at a
bank teller, and it was not improper for the district court to draw on past
experience to consider the effect the offense may have had on the teller. See
United States v. Shaw, 560 F.3d 1230, 1238 (11th Cir. 2009) (“There is no
requirement that sentencing judges . . . ignore what they have learned from similar
cases over the years.”).
Reeves’s sentence was substantively reasonable. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
3