United States v. James Lee Early, 686 F.3d 1219

Early pled guilty to two bank-robbery-by-violence counts; prosecutions consolidated in Florida districts; government dismissed other charges and recommended low-end guideline sentence.
District court found a guideline range of 78-97 months and sentenced Early to 210 months after considering 3553(a) factors and victim testimony.
Early’s criminal history is extensive, with many prior offenses including violent crimes and violations committed while on probation or bond; bank robberies occurred within a week using fake bombs.
Court emphasized the seriousness of the fake-bomb robberies, the terror faced by victims, and the need for deterrence and public protection; the court acknowledged a substantial variance from the guideline range.
Early argued the sentence was substantively unreasonable; the panel reviews the challenge under an abuse-of-discretion standard and upholds within-range reasoning so long as not outside the range of reasonable sentences.
The concurrence discusses deference to upward variances and criticizes the panel’s handling of policy considerations and downward-variance standards.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 210-month sentence is substantively reasonable	Early argues the sentence is substantively unreasonable	Early’s extensive history and repeated bank robberies justify the variance	Yes; sentence affirmed as substantively reasonable
Whether the district court properly weighed §3553(a) factors	Early argues guidelines didn't capture history or number of robberies	Court appropriately weighed factors, especially criminal history and multiple robberies	Yes; no clear error in weighing 3553(a) factors
Whether the court abused its discretion by increasing beyond guidelines due to deterrence/public protection concerns	Court ignored guideline structure and deterrence policy	Variance supported by policy considerations and individualized assessment	Yes; no abuse of discretion
Whether the panel should defer to upward variances under Booker-era precedent	Panel should scrutinize upward variance more stringently	Precedent permits deference for upward variances within statutory maximum	Yes; panel affirmed under deferential approach

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (reasonableness review for sentencing)
United States v. Shaw, 560 F.3d 1230 (11th Cir. 2009) (upward variance review framework)
United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784 (11th Cir. 2005) (burden to show reasonableness of sentence)
Gonzalez v. United States, 550 F.3d 1319 (11th Cir. 2008) (statutory maximum as comparison indicator of reasonableness)
United States v. Turner, 474 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir. 2007) (upward variance precedent)
United States v. Amedeo, 487 F.3d 823 (11th Cir. 2007) (upward variance guidance)
United States v. Jayyousi, 657 F.3d 1085 (11th Cir. 2011) (downward variance deference scrutiny)
United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160 (11th Cir. 2010) (downward variance scrutiny (en banc))
United States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179 (11th Cir. 2008) (downward variance scrutiny)