Filed: Aug. 31, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: Case: 15-10787 Date Filed: 08/31/2016 Page: 1 of 10 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 15-10787 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 2:13-cr-14057-RLR-4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ALEX GUERRIER, a.k.a. Spook, Defendant-Appellant. _ No. 15-10790 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 2:13-cr-14057-RLR-5 Case: 15-10787 Date Filed: 08/31/2016 Page: 2 of 10 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ROBIN JE
Summary: Case: 15-10787 Date Filed: 08/31/2016 Page: 1 of 10 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 15-10787 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 2:13-cr-14057-RLR-4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ALEX GUERRIER, a.k.a. Spook, Defendant-Appellant. _ No. 15-10790 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 2:13-cr-14057-RLR-5 Case: 15-10787 Date Filed: 08/31/2016 Page: 2 of 10 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ROBIN JEA..
More
Case: 15-10787 Date Filed: 08/31/2016 Page: 1 of 10
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-10787
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:13-cr-14057-RLR-4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ALEX GUERRIER,
a.k.a. Spook,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
No. 15-10790
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:13-cr-14057-RLR-5
Case: 15-10787 Date Filed: 08/31/2016 Page: 2 of 10
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ROBIN JEAN GUILLAUME,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(August 31, 2016)
Before TJOFLAT, JILL PRYOR, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
In this consolidated appeal, co-conspirators Alex Guerrier and Robin
Guillaume appeal their convictions and sentences -- after pleading guilty to
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §
841(a)(1), 841(b)(1) and 846, and for discharging a firearm in furtherance of a drug
2
Case: 15-10787 Date Filed: 08/31/2016 Page: 3 of 10
trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii). No reversible error
has been shown; we affirm.
I.
First, we reject Guerrier’s contention that he pleaded guilty only to the
lesser-included offense of possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking
offense, under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i), not to discharging a firearm in
furtherance of a drug trafficking offense, under section 924(c)(1)(A)(iii).
Guerrier’s indictment, plea agreement, and presentence investigation report
(“PSI”), as well as the district court’s comments during sentencing, all refer
expressly to Guerrier’s offense as being a violation of section 18 U.S.C. §
924(c)(1)(A)(iii). Furthermore, the record demonstrates clearly that the parties
contemplated -- and that Guerrier understood -- that Guerrier was facing a 10-year
mandatory minimum sentence, consistent with a violation of section
924(c)(1)(A)(iii).
In the alternative, Guerrier argues that, to the extent he pleaded guilty to a
violation of section 924(c)(1)(A)(iii), his guilty plea was not knowing and
voluntary. Because Guerrier failed to file written objections to the magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation (which recommended that the district court
3
Case: 15-10787 Date Filed: 08/31/2016 Page: 4 of 10
accept Guerrier’s knowing and voluntary guilty plea), Guerrier has waived his
challenge to the validity of his guilty plea. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(2); United
States v. Garcia-Sandobal, 703 F.3d 1278, 1282-83 (11th Cir. 2013); United States
v. Lewis,
492 F.3d 1219 (11th Cir. 2007) (en banc).
II.
Guerrier next argues that the district court erred by imposing a two-level
sentencing enhancement, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12), for maintaining a
premises for the purpose of manufacturing or distributing drugs. Guerrier raised
no objection at sentencing; we review this issue only for plain error. See United
States v. Maddox, 803 F.3d 1215, 1223 (11th Cir. 2015).
Both the stipulated factual basis for Guerrier’s guilty plea and Guerrier’s PSI
provided that, during the conspiracy, Guerrier used his residence as a “stash house”
from which he distributed drugs. Guerrier made no objection to these facts
contained in the PSI; thus, the facts are deemed admitted for purposes of
sentencing. See United States v. Bennett, 472 F.3d 825, 833-34 (11th Cir. 2006).
Furthermore, evidence recovered from Guerrier’s residence -- including several
kinds of drugs, three guns, two digital scales, and a metal grinder -- supports a
finding that distribution of drugs was one of the “primary or principal uses” of the
4
Case: 15-10787 Date Filed: 08/31/2016 Page: 5 of 10
house. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, comment. (n.17). On this record, the district court
committed no plain error in imposing a sentencing enhancement under section
2D1.1(b)(12).
III.
On appeal, Guillaume challenges his above-guidelines sentence as both
procedurally and substantively unreasonable. *
A.
A sentence may be procedurally unreasonable if the district court calculates
incorrectly the guidelines range, treats the guidelines as mandatory, fails to
consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, chooses a sentence based on clearly
erroneous facts, or fails to explain the chosen sentence. United States v. Gonzalez,
550 F.3d 1319, 1323 (11th Cir. 2008). Guillaume has failed to demonstrate that
his sentence is procedurally unsound.
First, the district court committed no clear error in finding, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that Guillaume was responsible for gunshot injuries
sustained by two police officers during Guillaume’s arrest. Guillaume concedes
*
Guillaume’s guidelines range for Count I was 60 to 63 months’ imprisonment; the
district court sentenced Guillaume to 188 months.
5
Case: 15-10787 Date Filed: 08/31/2016 Page: 6 of 10
that he fired a single shot as police officers attempted to enter the stash house, but
he contends that at least one of the officers was injured by weapon fire coming
from police officers. The district court, however, accepted testimony from the
injured officers that multiple shots were fired from inside the house. Because the
officers’ testimony was not “exceedingly improbable” such that “no reasonable
factfinder could accept it,” we accept the district court’s credibility determination.
See United States v. Ramirez-Chilel, 289 F.3d 744, 749 (11th Cir. 2002) (emphasis
in original). Also, even under Guillaume’s version of the facts, Guillaume’s
shooting was at least the proximate cause of both officers’ injuries. Thus,
Guillaume has not shown that the district court relied on clearly erroneous facts in
selecting a sentence based in part on Guillaume’s responsibility for serious injuries
to two officers.
We also reject Guillaume’s argument that the district court erred by
permitting the two injured officers to testify as “crime victims” under the Crime
Victims’ Rights Act, 18 U.S.C § 3771 (“CVRA”). The CVRA defines “crime
victim” broadly to include “a person directly and proximately harmed as a result of
the commission of a federal offense.” 18 U.S.C. § 3771(e). Nothing evidences
that police officers are categorically excluded from the definition of “crime
victim.” Nor does Guillaume deny that the injured officers suffered direct or
proximate harm as a result of his offense. The injured officers’ testimony about
6
Case: 15-10787 Date Filed: 08/31/2016 Page: 7 of 10
the extent and severity of their injuries was pertinent to the district court’s
consideration of whether an above-guidelines sentence was warranted. And the
district court has broad discretion to consider diverse evidence at sentencing. See
18 U.S.C. § 3661 (“No limitation shall be placed on the information concerning the
background, character, and conduct of a person convicted of an offense which a
court of the United States may receive and consider for the purpose of imposing an
appropriate sentence.”).
Guillaume also argues that the district court erred procedurally in departing
upward under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.2 instead of applying an upward adjustment under
U.S.S.G. § 3A1.2. Because the district court explained expressly that it would
have imposed the same sentence based on its consideration of the 18 U.S.C. §
3553(a) factors, we need not address Guillaume’s arguments about application of
section 5K2.2. Instead, we must only determine whether the sentence imposed was
reasonable in the light of the section 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Keene,
470 F.3d 1347, 1348-50 (11th Cir. 2006).
B.
We evaluate the substantive reasonableness of a sentence -- whether inside
or outside the guidelines range -- under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.
7
Case: 15-10787 Date Filed: 08/31/2016 Page: 8 of 10
Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). In reviewing the substantive
reasonableness of a sentence, we examine “the totality of the circumstances,
including . . . whether the statutory factors in § 3553(a) support the sentence in
question.”
Gonzalez, 550 F.3d at 1324.
When a sentence is above the guidelines range, we “may consider the
deviation, ‘but must give due deference to the district court’s decision that the §
3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the variance.’” United States v.
Williams, 526 F.3d 1312, 1322 (11th Cir. 2008). “We may vacate a sentence
because of the variance only ‘if we are left with the definite and firm conviction
that the district court committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the §
3553(a) factors by arriving at a sentence that lies outside the range of reasonable
sentences dictated by the facts of the case.’” United States v. Shaw,
560 F.3d
1230, 1238 (11th Cir. 2009). “[T]hat we ‘might reasonably have concluded that a
different sentence was appropriate is insufficient to justify reversal.’”
Id.
The party challenging the sentence bears the burden of establishing that the
sentence is unreasonable in the light of both the record and the section 3553(a)
factors. United States v. Talley,
431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir. 2005).
Guillaume has failed to demonstrate that his above-guidelines sentence
substantively was unreasonable. The record demonstrates that Guillaume (together
with co-conspirator Guerrier) maintained a stash house from which both men sold
8
Case: 15-10787 Date Filed: 08/31/2016 Page: 9 of 10
drugs as part of a larger drug trafficking operation. On the day of Guillaume’s
arrest, several officers arrived at the stash house, knocked on the door, and
announced their presence. As officers attempted to enter the front door, Guillaume
fired at least one gunshot in the officers’ direction, causing the officers to return
fire. As a result of the encounter, two officers were shot.
Based on the nature and circumstances of Guillaume’s offense, the district
court concluded that an above-guidelines sentence was necessary to reflect the
seriousness of the offense, to protect the public, and to provide adequate
deterrence. The district court stressed that Guillaume knowingly created a risk of
harm by maintaining a stash house for drugs, by keeping guns at the stash house,
and by firing intentionally a gun toward persons at the front door. Guillaume’s
conduct demonstrated a clear disregard for human life and, as a result of
Guillaume’s conduct, two officers were seriously injured (one of whom is now
permanently disabled).
In the light of the record as a whole, the district court abused no discretion in
determining that an above-guidelines sentence was warranted. Although the
degree of the deviation is substantial, the sentence imposed is proportionate to the
seriousness of Guillaume’s offense and is supported by the section 3553(a) factors.
In addition, that Guillaume’s sentence of 188 months for Count I is well below the
statutory maximum sentence of 40 years’ imprisonment is further evidence of its
9
Case: 15-10787 Date Filed: 08/31/2016 Page: 10 of 10
reasonableness. See Gonzalez, 550 F.3d at 1324 (concluding a sentence was
reasonable in part because it was well below the statutory maximum sentence).
On this record, we are not convinced that Guillaume’s above-guidelines
sentence was unreasonable or that “the district court committed a clear error of
judgment in weighing the § 3553(a) factors.” See Shaw, 560 F.3d at 1238.
IV.
Guillaume contends that his trial lawyer provided ineffective assistance
during sentencing. Because the record is not yet sufficiently developed on this
issue, we decline to consider Guillaume’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim
on direct appeal. See United States v. Bender, 290 F.3d 1279, 1284 (11th Cir.
2002) (in general, we will not “consider claims of ineffective assistance of counsel
raised on direct appeal where the district court did not entertain the claim or
develop a factual record.”).
AFFIRMED.
10
