United States v. Darius Santas Brightwell
682 F. App'x 862
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Darius Brightwell pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute and admitted violating supervised release from a prior conviction.
- The PSR calculated a guideline range of 33–41 months for the supervised-release violation but recommended the statutory maximum of 24 months because of the statutory cap; the PSR noted the Guidelines’ policy that such a sentence be consecutive to any other term.
- At sentencing the government recommended the two sentences (the new-offense sentence and the revocation sentence) run concurrently; the district court instead imposed 24 months for the revocation to run consecutively to the new-offense sentence.
- The district court explained it considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)/§ 3553(a) factors, cited Brightwell’s serious criminal history as the reason for consecutive terms, and acknowledged mitigating factors (drug addiction, health issues), recommending drug treatment.
- Brightwell appealed, arguing the sentence was substantively unreasonable for overemphasizing criminal history and for ordering consecutive sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether revocation sentence was substantively unreasonable for overrelying on criminal history | Brightwell: court gave excessive weight to criminal history and ignored mitigating factors (addiction, health, rehabilitation efforts) | Government/District Court: court considered § 3583(e)/§ 3553(a) factors and permissibly emphasized criminal history | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; court considered mitigating factors and reasonably weighed criminal history |
| Whether ordering the revocation sentence consecutive to the new-offense sentence was unreasonable | Brightwell: consecutive term was unjustified and excessive | Government/District Court: court may impose consecutive terms and Guidelines recommend consecutive sentences after revocation | Affirmed — district court followed Guidelines policy and did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Velasquez Velasquez, 524 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir.) (standard of review for revocation sentences)
- United States v. Osorio-Moreno, 814 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir.) (abuse-of-discretion standard for substantive reasonableness)
- United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160 (11th Cir.) (definite and firm conviction standard for vacating sentences)
- United States v. Croteau, 819 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir.) (district court discretion in weighting § 3553(a) factors)