United States v. Bryan Whitehead, 11th Cir. (2015)

Case: 14-14223
Date Filed: 04/03/2015
Page: 1 of 10
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-14223
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:12-cr-60130-WJZ-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
BRYAN WHITEHEAD,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(April 3, 2015)
Before HULL, JULIE CARNES and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 14-14223
Page: 2 of 10
After resentencing, Bryan Whitehead appeals his 432-month total sentence

for two counts of bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2113(a), and two
counts of brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence, in violation of 18
U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). Whiteheads 432-month total sentence is comprised of
concurrent 48-month sentences on the bank robbery counts, a mandatory
consecutive 84-month sentence on the first firearm count, and a mandatory
consecutive 300-month sentence on the second firearm count. On appeal,
Whitehead argues that his concurrent 48-month sentences on the two bank robbery
counts are substantively unreasonable. After review, we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
A.
Offense Conduct
In 2010, Whitehead robbed a bank at gunpoint, ordering the bank employees
to empty their cash drawers and forcing them to the vault to give him money from
there as well. After taking the money, Whitehead escaped.
Two years later, in 2012, Whitehead robbed another bank at gunpoint, again
forcing the tellers to give him money from their cash drawers and from the banks
vault. After the second bank robbery, Whitehead was apprehended.
Following a jury trial, Whitehead was convicted of two counts of bank
robbery (Counts 1 and 3) and two counts of brandishing a firearm during the bank
robberies (Counts 2 and 4).
2
Case: 14-14223
B.
Page: 3 of 10
First Sentencing and Appeal

At Whiteheads original sentencing, the district court imposed a 471-month
total sentence. Pursuant to 924(c), the district court imposed a consecutive,

seven year (84-month) sentence for the first firearm count and a consecutive
twenty-five year (300-month) sentence on the second firearm count, which
accounted for 384 months of the total sentence. The sentences on the firearm
counts were the mandatory minimums under 18 U.S.C. 924(c) and were
statutorily required to be served consecutive to each other and to any other
sentence. See 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A), (C), (D) (requiring a seven year sentence
if a firearm was brandished and a twenty-five year sentence for a second or
subsequent [ 924(c)] conviction and prohibiting the sentences from running
concurrently with any other term of imprisonment).
For the two bank robbery counts, the district court calculated a combined
total offense level. In doing so, the district court imposed a four-level abduction
enhancement, pursuant to U.S.S.G. 2B3.1(b)(4)(A), because during the robberies
Whitehead forced bank employees at gunpoint to move to different areas of the
banks. With a combined total offense level of 29 and a criminal history category
of I, the district court calculated an advisory guidelines range of 87 to 108 months
imprisonment.
Case: 14-14223
Page: 4 of 10
As to the bank robbery counts, Whitehead requested a sentence below the

advisory guidelines rangespecifically a sentence of no time on the bank
robbery countsbased in part on Whiteheads good character and the fact that he
had no prior criminal history. In support, Whitehead called two witnesses, who
testified that Whitehead: (1) was a good father who was close to his two children,
one of whom suffered from sickle cell disease; and (2) had saved food to feed a
homeless man in his neighborhood and had dropped out of college to support his
younger siblings when his mother lost her job. The government asked for a 108month sentence on the bank robbery counts, and called one of the bank robbery
victims to testify about the trauma she suffered from the bank robbery. The district
court imposed two concurrent 87-month sentences on the bank robbery counts, at
the low end of the range.
On appeal, this Court affirmed Whiteheads convictions, but vacated the
total sentence after concluding that the district court erred by applying U.S.S.G.
2B3.1(b)(4)(A)s four-level abduction enhancement when calculating the
advisory guidelines range for the two bank robbery counts. United States v.
Whitehead, 567 F. Appx 758, 770-71 (11th Cir.), cert denied, 135 S. Ct. 308
(2014). The Court explained that [i]nstead, when a defendant forces victims at
gunpoint to move to different areas of a bank branch, the increase for physical
restraint of victims under 2B3.1(b)(4)(B) applies. Id. at 771. Because the Court
4
Case: 14-14223
Page: 5 of 10
was remanding for resentencing, it did not address Whiteheads argument that his
sentences were substantively unreasonable. Id.
C.
Resentencing
At Whiteheads resentencing, the parties agreed that: (1) the mandatory
minimum consecutive terms for the firearm counts, Counts 2 and 4, remained 84
months and 300 months, respectively; and (2) with the two-level physical-restraint
enhancement, the advisory guidelines range for the bank robbery counts, Counts 1
and 3, was now 70 to 87 months.
Whitehead again asked for a downward variance. Whitehead argued that the
total mandatory minimum 32-year sentence on Counts 2 and 4, due to 924(c)s
requirement that those sentences be stacked, was more than adequate to serve the
purposes of 18 U.S.C. 3553(a), especially given that Whitehead had no criminal
history before the bank robberies. In support, Whitehead submitted an excerpt
from a 2011 Sentencing Commission Report to Congress (Report). See U.S.
Sentencing Commn, Report to Congress: Mandatory Minimum Penalties in the
Federal Criminal Justice System (October 2011). The Report notes that 924(c)s
requirement that mandatory minimum sentences be stacked can result in unduly
harsh sentences where all the stacked 924(c) offenses are charged in the same
indictment as part of a crime spree and the defendant had no prior criminal history.
Id., ch. 12 at 359-60. The Report recommends that 924(c) be amended so that,
5
Case: 14-14223
Page: 6 of 10
inter alia, the mandatory stacking requirement apply only when the first 924(c)
offense is the result of a prior conviction. Id., ch. 12 at 364.
The government requested a 70-month sentence, at the low end of the
advisory guidelines range. The government pointed out that, although Whitehead
did not have any prior convictions before this prosecution, he committed the two
bank robberies two years apart and not as part of a single criminal episode. Thus,
stacking his 924(c) offenses did not result in an excessively harsh sentence on
Whiteheads firearm counts and did not justify a downward variance with respect
to his bank robbery counts. In response, Whitehead argued that his stacked
924(c) sentences were too harsh because he is not a true recidivist in the sense
that he was not convicted and imprisoned on his first offense before committing a
second offense.
The district court asked to be reminded of the testimony of the victim at the
original sentencing hearing. The government stated that one of the tellers
previously testified about the harrowing nature of the robbery and that she still
suffered from post-traumatic stress issues.
Before imposing the sentence, the district court noted that it had considered
the parties arguments and all of the 3553(a) factors, emphasizing in particular
the need to promote respect for the law, deter future criminal conduct, and provide
a just punishment. The district court granted Whiteheads request for a downward
6
Case: 14-14223
Page: 7 of 10
variance and imposed concurrent 48-month sentences on Counts 1 and 3, resulting

in a total sentence of 432 months.
II. DISCUSSION
On appeal, Whitehead argues that the district court was required to vary
downward to a total zero-month prison sentence on Counts 1 and 4 to alleviate the
severity of his mandatory, consecutive sentences on Counts 2 and 4, and requests
that we vacate his total 432-month sentence and remand with instructions to
impose a total 384-month sentence.
We review the reasonableness of a sentence for an abuse of discretion using
a two-step process. United States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179, 1190 (11th Cir. 2008).
We look first at whether the district court committed any significant procedural
error and then at whether the sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the
18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances. Id. On appeal,
Whitehead argues only that his sentence is substantively unreasonable, and thus
has abandoned any claim of procedural unreasonableness. See United States v.
Dougherty, 754 F.3d 1353, 1358 (11th Cir. 2014).
The abuse of discretion standard allows a range of choice for the district
court, and we will vacate a sentence only if 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
7
Case: 14-14223
Page: 8 of 10
reasonable sentences dictated by the facts of the case. United States v. Irey, 612
F.3d 1160, 1189-90 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (quotation marks omitted). The
party challenging the sentence bears the burden of showing that the sentence is
unreasonable in light of the record and the 3553(a) factors. Dougherty, 754 F.3d
1353 at 1361. 1
Here, Whitehead has not shown that his total 432-month sentence is
substantively unreasonable or that the district court abused its discretion by varying
downward only to 48 months as to Counts 1 and 3, the bank robbery offenses. 2
Whiteheads 48-month concurrent sentences on Counts 1 and 3 are 22 months
below his advisory guidelines range of 70 to 87 months and well below the 20-year
statutory maximum in 18 U.S.C. 2113(a), both indications of reasonableness.
See United States v. Hunt, 526 F.3d 739, 746 (11th Cir. 2008); United States v.
Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319, 1324 (11th Cir. 2008).
The 3553(a) factors include: (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the
history and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need to reflect the seriousness of the offense,
to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense; (3) the need for
deterrence; (4) the need to protect the public; (5) the need to provide the defendant with needed
educational or vocational training or medical care; (6) the kinds of sentences available; (7) the
Sentencing Guidelines range; (8) pertinent policy statements of the Sentencing Commission; (9)
the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities; and (10) the need to provide restitution to
victims. 18 U.S.C. 3553(a).
2
The parties agree that the district court was statutorily required to impose the mandatory
minimum sentences on Counts 2 and 4 and to run the sentences consecutive to any other
sentence. Thus, the only question here is whether the district courts decision to impose
concurrent 48-month sentences on Counts 1 and 3 was an abuse of discretion.
8
Case: 14-14223
Page: 9 of 10
Whitehead argues that, given his mandatory consecutive sentences on

Counts 2 and 4, the district court was required to var[y] downward as far as
possible on Counts 1 and 3 to minimize the injustice. Whitehead relies on the
2011 Reports finding that 924(c)s mandatory stacked sentences sometimes
result in excessively harsh sentences for defendants with no prior convictions.
The 2011 Report does not make Whiteheads 48-month sentences
substantively unreasonable. Although a district court may consider a Sentencing
Commission report when selecting the appropriate sentence, such a report does
not limit the district courts discretion to determine what weight to give to each
3553(a) factor and does not require the district court to vary from the
correctly calculated advisory guidelines range. United States v. Cubero, 754 F.3d
888, 900 (11th Cir. 2014).
The district court considered the 2011 Report and Whiteheads arguments
that he had no prior criminal history and was not a true recidivist. In fact, the
district court gave Whitehead a 22-month downward variance based on these
mitigation arguments. But, the district court also considered the need for the
sentence to promote respect for the law, deter future criminal conduct, and provide
a just punishment. After weighing all the factors, the district court was unwilling
to vary any further downward. Under the totality of the circumstances, we cannot
say the district court abused its discretion.
9
Case: 14-14223
AFFIRMED.
10
Page: 10 of 10

United States v. Bryan Whitehead, 11th Cir. (2015)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

United States v. Bryan Whitehead, 11th Cir. (2015)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

United States v. Bryan Whitehead, 11th Cir. (2015)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case: 14-14223

Date Filed: 04/03/2015

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Date Filed: 04/03/2015

After resentencing, Bryan Whitehead appeals his 432-month total sentence

Date Filed: 04/03/2015

First Sentencing and Appeal

total sentence. Pursuant to 924(c), the district court imposed a consecutive,

Date Filed: 04/03/2015

As to the bank robbery counts, Whitehead requested a sentence below the

Date Filed: 04/03/2015

Date Filed: 04/03/2015

Date Filed: 04/03/2015

variance and imposed concurrent 48-month sentences on Counts 1 and 3, resulting

Date Filed: 04/03/2015

Date Filed: 04/03/2015

Whitehead argues that, given his mandatory consecutive sentences on

Date Filed: 04/03/2015

You might also like