United States v. David Lee Mitchell
687 F. App'x 899
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Mitchell, age 56, pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting attempted bank fraud, aggravated identity theft, and possession of counterfeit securities.
- District court imposed a 120‑month sentence, a significant upward variance above the Guidelines range.
- Mitchell has a long criminal history dating to 1982 with at least 27 convictions, including multiple forgery/uttered check offenses through 2011.
- The district court emphasized Mitchell’s repeated, decades‑long pattern of the same fraudulent conduct and the lack of deterrence from prior sentences.
- Court cited need for general and specific deterrence and public protection as primary reasons for the upward variance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural reasonableness: Did the court give Guidelines adequate consideration? | Mitchell: court failed to give the Guidelines meaningful weight, making them effectively irrelevant. | Government/District Court: court thoroughly considered §3553(a) factors and expressly explained why Guidelines were inadequate. | Affirmed — no procedural error; court adequately explained and applied §3553(a) factors. |
| Substantive reasonableness: Was the upward variance justified? | Mitchell: variance was unreasonably large for low‑level economic crime. | Court: long, repeated criminal history and deterrence needs justified a major variance. | Affirmed — variance reasonable given compelling justification and statutory maximum. |
| Burden of proof on appeal | Mitchell: (challenge sentence reasonableness). | Government: defendant bears burden to show unreasonableness. | Affirmed — Mitchell failed to meet burden to show abuse of discretion. |
| Reliance on criminal history | Mitchell: prior convictions shouldn’t justify extreme departure from Guidelines. | Court: prior, similar offenses over decades are proper and weighty sentencing considerations. | Affirmed — district court permissibly placed great weight on criminal history. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for sentencing review)
- United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (standards for procedural and substantive reasonableness; justification needed for major variance)
- United States v. Wayerski, 624 F.3d 1342 (11th Cir. 2010) (procedural reasonableness checklist)
- United States v. De La Cruz Suarez, 601 F.3d 1202 (11th Cir. 2010) (defendant bears burden to show sentence procedurally unreasonable)
- United States v. Williams, 526 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2008) (upholding sentence where court attached great weight to one §3553(a) factor)
- United States v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319 (11th Cir. 2008) (sentence below statutory maximum is an indicator of reasonableness)
- United States v. Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir. 2015) (upholding a sentence more than three times the Guidelines range)
- United States v. Early, 686 F.3d 1219 (11th Cir. 2012) (upholding large upward variance)