United States v. Dylan Stanley
754 F.3d 1353
11th Cir.2014Background
- Siblings Lee Dougherty, Ryan Dougherty, and Dylan Stanley committed an eight-day, multi-state flight after cutting off Ryan’s ankle monitor and committing an armed bank robbery in Valdosta, Georgia; guns were fired in the bank and during subsequent encounters with police.
- During the escape they traveled through many states, changed license plates, and ultimately engaged in a high-speed car chase in Colorado during which shots were fired at pursuing officers; the car flipped and defendants were arrested.
- At sentencing the district court applied a six-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3A1.2(c)(1) (assault on law enforcement during immediate flight) and a two-level § 3C1.2 enhancement (creating substantial risk during flight) to all three; Stanley also received a two-level § 3C1.1 obstruction enhancement for an attempted jail escape.
- Lee and Stanley appealed both procedural and substantive reasonableness; Ryan appealed only substantive reasonableness (waiving procedural challenges).
- The Eleventh Circuit vacated Lee’s and Stanley’s sentences and remanded for resentencing because the court held the § 3A1.2(c) “immediate flight” enhancement was misapplied; the § 3C1.2 and Stanley’s § 3C1.1 enhancements were affirmed. Ryan’s 428-month sentence was affirmed on substantive-reasonableness review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 3A1.2(c)(1) six-level enhancement applies for assault during “immediate flight” when assaults occurred eight days and many miles after the robbery | Govt: enhancement applies because flight was continuous from the robbery to later assaults | Lee/Stanley: “immediate flight” requires conduct occurring without delay; assaults eight days later are not immediate | Court: vacated enhancement for Lee and Stanley — “immediate” means without delay; enhancement was improperly applied |
| Whether § 3C1.2 two-level enhancement for recklessly creating substantial risk during flight applies | Govt: § 3C1.2 applies to reckless conduct during flight; covers resisting arrest and need not be immediate | Lee/Stanley: cannot be held accountable for Ryan’s reckless driving absent active participation | Court: affirmed § 3C1.2 — both Lee and Stanley personally engaged in reckless, risk-creating conduct (shots fired; gun aimed at officer) |
| Whether § 3C1.1 obstruction enhancement applies for Stanley’s attempted jail escape months after arrest | Govt: attempted escape from custody before trial/sentencing fits § 3C1.1 application note | Stanley: escape related only to Colorado charges and not the Georgia offense; enhancement improper | Court: affirmed § 3C1.1 — escape while incarcerated after indictment fits application note example and supports enhancement |
| Whether Ryan’s upward-variance sentence (428 months) was substantively unreasonable | Ryan: variance unjustified; district court over-weighted criminal history; failed to give sufficient reasons and created disparities | Govt: variance supported by dangerousness of offense, firearms, firing at officers, high-speed interstate chase, and prior flight while on probation | Court: affirmed Ryan’s sentence — district court gave adequate, compelling reasons; sentence below statutory maxima and not unreasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mandhai, 375 F.3d 1243 (11th Cir. 2004) (standards for guideline interpretation and fact review)
- United States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179 (11th Cir. 2008) (reasonableness review standard)
- United States v. Jernigan, 341 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir. 2003) (abandonment of appellate issues not properly presented)
- United States v. Digiorgio, 193 F.3d 1175 (11th Cir. 1999) (giving ordinary meaning to undefined guideline terms)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (procedural and substantive reasonableness framework)
- United States v. Cook, 181 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir. 1999) (requirement of active participation to hold defendant accountable for another’s obstructive conduct)
- United States v. Johnson, 694 F.3d 1192 (11th Cir. 2012) (need for specific finding that defendant caused reckless behavior for § 3C1.2 accountability)
- United States v. Alpert, 28 F.3d 1104 (11th Cir. 1994) (limits on § 3C1.1 when defendants flee before indictment; distinguishing facts regarding incarceration)
- United States v. Early, 686 F.3d 1219 (11th Cir. 2012) (review of large upward variances and needed justification)