United States v. Jason Henry Davis
697 F. App'x 999
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Jason Davis pleaded guilty to wire fraud, access device fraud, aggravated identity theft (12 counts), and false statements arising from collecting his deceased father’s pension and Social Security benefits; total receipts exceeded $118,000.
- Skeletal remains of Davis’s father were found in 2013; Davis later admitted his mother murdered the father, that he observed the murder, and that he painted over blood spatter.
- Davis admitted he did not report the father’s death and used the father’s identity and bank account to obtain benefits; he also made false statements on a food assistance application.
- The PSR grouped most counts (except aggravated identity theft) and produced a combined advisory range of 18–24 months for those counts, plus a mandatory consecutive 24 months for the identity-theft counts (total 42–48 months).
- The district court found Davis aided in concealing the murder and materially benefited from it, performed a 48-month upward departure/variance from the high end of the guidelines, and imposed a 96-month total sentence; the court acknowledged an alternative variance under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
- On appeal the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the sentence as procedurally and substantively reasonable but vacated and remanded to correct two counts (Counts 22 and 23) where 72-month terms exceeded the 60-month statutory maximum for 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural reasonableness: Were fact findings clearly erroneous? | Government: district court’s findings that Davis knew of the murder, helped conceal it, and used benefits to further conceal were supported by interview admissions and evidence. | Davis: court relied on speculative or erroneous facts; departure/variance unjustified. | Affirmed: findings not clearly erroneous; evidence (admissions, conduct) supported the court’s conclusions. |
| Validity of upward departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0 | Government: circumstances (accessory-after-the-fact tied to benefits theft and concealment) not adequately considered by Guidelines; departure appropriate. | Davis: Guidelines already accounted for conduct; departure improper. | Court: even if departure review not dispositive, district court would have imposed same sentence as an upward § 3553(a) variance. Any error on § 5K2.0 review harmless. |
| Substantive reasonableness of 48-month upward variance | Government: severity, concealment, motive (benefits), and admissions justify a significant variance. | Davis: variance excessive for a benefits case; not a typical theft. | Affirmed: under deference to district court’s weighing of § 3553(a) factors, 96 months reasonable given concealment, participation, and motive; sentence well below statutory maximum, supporting reasonableness. |
| Sentencing legality for Counts 22–23 (false statements) | Government concedes error: district court imposed 72 months which exceeds statutory maximum for § 1001(a)(2). | Davis: challenge to excessive individual counts. | Court: total sentence affirmed, but 72-month terms on Counts 22 and 23 vacated and judgment remanded to correct each to 60 months (statutory max). |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cubero, 754 F.3d 888 (11th Cir. 2014) (procedural-reasonableness standards for sentencing)
- United States v. Polar, 369 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir. 2004) (sources a district court may rely on for factfinding at sentencing)
- United States v. Newman, 614 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir. 2010) (sentencing facts cannot be based on speculation)
- United States v. Monzo, 852 F.3d 1343 (11th Cir. 2017) (deference to district court’s choice between permissible views of evidence)
- United States v. Keene, 470 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2006) (if district court would impose same sentence under § 3553(a), guideline issue may be harmless)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (district court must consider variance extent and justify degree of deviation)
- United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012 (11th Cir. 2005) (a general sentence exceeding statutory maximum on an individual count is per se illegal)