United States v. Gregory McDonald, 692 F. App'x 589

McDonald pleaded guilty to carjacking (18 U.S.C. § 2119) and brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)).
Facts: McDonald, co-defendant Askins, and two minors forced a man into his truck at gunpoint, bound him with duct tape and zip ties, beat him, drove him around, and discussed killing him when they learned he was a law-enforcement officer; the victim suffered injury and PTSD.
District court sentenced McDonald to 156 months on Count One (within the 140–175 mo. guidelines range) and a consecutive mandatory 84 months on Count Two, totaling 240 months.
On appeal McDonald argued the sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable: procedural for allegedly glossing over mitigation (age, IQ 64, mental-health diagnoses, disadvantaged upbringing); substantive for excessive length and unwarranted disparity with Askins.
The Eleventh Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion, considered the § 3553(a) factors, and affirmed McDonald’s 240-month total sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Procedural reasonableness — failure to address mitigation	McDonald: district court glossed over non-frivolous mitigation and failed to explain rejection	Government: court reviewed PSI, exhibits, heard testimony, and sufficiently considered § 3553(a) factors	Affirmed — no procedural error; court adequately considered mitigation and explained sentence
Substantive reasonableness — length of Count One sentence	McDonald: age, low IQ, mental-health and upbringing warrant shorter sentence	Government: crimes were horrific, violent, premeditated; extensive violent juvenile/adult history supports long sentence	Affirmed — 156 months within advisory range and reasonable given § 3553(a) factors
Unwarranted sentencing disparity with co-defendant Askins	McDonald: disparity (156 vs. 84 months on Count One) is unjustified	Government: disparity driven by differing criminal-history categories; defendants not similarly situated	Affirmed — no improper disparity; Askins not similarly situated
Challenge to Askins’s criminal-history calculation / Rule 35 reduction	McDonald: Askins’s criminal history was miscalculated; later Rule 35 reduction improper, affecting disparity analysis	Government: even if Askins’s category were higher, Askins would still not be similarly situated; Rule 35 irrelevant to McDonald’s sentence reasonableness	Affirmed — even assuming error, it doesn’t render McDonald’s sentence unreasonable

United States v. Cubero, 754 F.3d 888 (11th Cir. 2014) (two-step abuse-of-discretion reasonableness review)
United States v. Vandergrift, 754 F.3d 1302 (11th Cir. 2014) (plain-error standard when not raised below)
United States v. Alvarado, 808 F.3d 474 (11th Cir. 2015) (burden on challenger to show unreasonableness)
United States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179 (11th Cir. 2008) (substantive-reasonableness standard: firm conviction test)
United States v. Carpenter, 803 F.3d 1224 (11th Cir. 2015) (sufficiency of sentencing court’s explanation)
United States v. Amedeo, 487 F.3d 823 (11th Cir. 2007) (failure to discuss mitigation does not automatically mean it was not considered)
United States v. Stanley, 739 F.3d 633 (11th Cir. 2014) (guidelines range and distance from statutory maximum weigh toward reasonableness)
United States v. Hunt, 526 F.3d 739 (11th Cir. 2008) (similar principle on reasonableness indicators)
United States v. Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir. 2015) (weight may be given to criminal record under § 3553(a))
United States v. Docampo, 573 F.3d 1091 (11th Cir. 2009) (comparator must be similarly situated for disparity claim)
United States v. Spoerke, 568 F.3d 1236 (11th Cir. 2009) (unprosecuted accomplice not similarly situated)
United States v. Dudley, 463 F.3d 1221 (11th Cir. 2006) (limits on reviewing district court’s discretionary departure decisions)