United States v. Donald C. Brigman
711 F. App'x 971
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- On Oct. 17, 2014, Donald Brigman assaulted his wife: pushed her head into a shower wall, put her in a headlock, choked her twice (about 20 seconds and 10–15 seconds), slammed her head into a door, prevented her from leaving or calling, threatened to kill her, and administered sedating medication; injuries included scratches, bruises, cervical strain, and contusion.
- Brigman pleaded guilty to one count of assaulting his spouse by strangulation and attempted strangulation under 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(8); a second count was dismissed on the government’s motion.
- The PSR calculated a base offense level 14 under U.S.S.G. § 2A2.2, plus +3 for bodily injury under § 2A2.2(b)(3)(A) and +3 for strangling under § 2A2.2(b)(4), then -3 for acceptance of responsibility, yielding adjusted offense level 17 and guideline range 24–30 months (Crim. Hist. I).
- Brigman objected, arguing the two +3 adjustments double counted the same conduct and sought a lower sentence; the district court rejected the objection and imposed 24 months’ imprisonment.
- On appeal Brigman challenged (1) impermissible double counting of guideline enhancements and (2) procedural and substantive unreasonableness of his 24‑month sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether applying both §2A2.2(b)(3)(A) (bodily injury) and §2A2.2(b)(4) (strangling) double counts the same conduct | Brigman: the §2A2.2 commentary defines aggravated assault to include strangling and serious injury, so the base offense already accounts for those harms; applying both +3s double counts | Government/District Ct.: §2A2.2 expressly lists cumulative special offense characteristics (with a cap) and the two adjustments address conceptually distinct harms (injury severity vs. conduct of strangling) | Court affirmed: no impermissible double counting; enhancements may be applied cumulatively because they address separate concepts and the Guidelines contemplate cumulative application |
| Whether the sentence was procedurally unreasonable | Brigman: district court erred in guideline calculation and/or failed to properly consider §3553(a) factors | Government: district court correctly calculated guidelines, applied enhancements, and considered §3553(a) factors in explanation | Court affirmed: no significant procedural error; guideline range properly calculated and court adequately explained and considered §3553(a) factors |
| Whether the sentence was substantively unreasonable | Brigman: 24 months is greater than necessary given his acceptance of responsibility, compliance, and treatment | Government: sentence within advisory guideline range and below statutory max; court weighed seriousness, deterrence, and defendant history | Court affirmed: sentence not substantively unreasonable; no clear error in weighing §3553(a) factors |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Webb, 665 F.3d 1380 (11th Cir. 2012) (double‑counting principle and presumption that cumulative guideline sections are intended to apply together)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard of review for sentencing reasonableness and required procedural steps)
- United States v. Hill, 783 F.3d 842 (11th Cir. 2015) (burden on party challenging sentence to show procedural unreasonableness)
- United States v. Tome, 611 F.3d 1371 (11th Cir. 2010) (burden to show substantive unreasonableness under §3553(a))
- United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160 (11th Cir. 2010) (standards for abuse of discretion in sentencing and when reversal is warranted)
- United States v. Cubero, 754 F.3d 888 (11th Cir. 2014) (sentence within guideline range is an indicator of reasonableness)