United States v. Christopher Bowen Balfrey
696 F. App'x 450
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Christopher Balfrey pled guilty to: (1) conspiracy to distribute cocaine; (2) two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm; and (3) possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime.
- The PSR treated Balfrey as a career offender based on two prior Florida felony convictions (robbery and delivery of cocaine), producing a Guidelines range of 151–188 months and a mandatory consecutive 60-month term under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).
- At sentencing the district court adopted the PSR, considered § 3553(a) factors, acknowledged Balfrey committed his prior offenses as a juvenile and had years of improved adult conduct, and imposed a below-Guidelines term of 91 months plus the mandatory 60-month consecutive term (total 151 months).
- Balfrey appealed, raising: (1) that Florida robbery is not a predicate “crime of violence” for the career-offender enhancement; (2) that the district court improperly considered his refusal to cooperate (procedural reasonableness); and (3) that his sentence was substantively unreasonable for insufficient weight given to his youth and subsequent rehabilitation.
- The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the unpreserved predicate-offense challenge for plain error and reviewed sentence reasonableness for abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Florida robbery is a predicate “crime of violence” for career-offender status | Balfrey: Florida robbery is not a qualifying crime of violence (invoking Johnson vagueness concerns) | Gov't: Lockley controls; Florida robbery qualifies as a crime of violence | Court: Affirmed Lockley; Beckles forecloses vagueness challenge to advisory Guidelines, so robbery remains a predicate |
| Whether the district court procedurally erred by considering Balfrey's refusal to cooperate | Balfrey: Court relied on his refusal to cooperate in sentencing | Gov't: Court expressly stated it gave no weight to cooperation and, even if it did, failure to cooperate is a permissible consideration | Court: No procedural error; record shows court disclaimed consideration and, in any event, failure to cooperate can be considered |
| Whether the sentence was substantively unreasonable (insufficient mitigation for crimes committed as a juvenile and long clean period) | Balfrey: Court did not adequately weigh his juvenile status and long period of good conduct | Gov't: Sentence within district court’s broad discretion given seriousness of offenses | Court: No abuse of discretion — court considered youth and improved conduct and properly exercised sentencing discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Lockley, 632 F.3d 1238 (11th Cir. 2011) (Florida robbery qualifies as a crime of violence for career-offender purposes)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (struck down ACCA residual clause as unconstitutionally vague)
- Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017) (advisory Guidelines are not subject to vagueness challenges under the Due Process Clause)
- United States v. Malekzadeh, 855 F.2d 1492 (11th Cir. 1988) (a court may consider a defendant’s failure to cooperate at sentencing)
- United States v. Dougherty, 754 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 2014) (weight given to § 3553(a) factors is committed to district court discretion)