United States v. Jeremy L. Addison
708 F. App'x 582
11th Cir.2017Background
- Defendant Jeremy Lorenzo Addison pleaded guilty to forcible assault of a federal officer (18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1), (b)).
- Guidelines: base offense level 14, +3 for bodily injury, +2 under § 111(b), +6 for victim being a prison official, total offense level 25; criminal history category VI (extensive violent record).
- Guidelines range: 110–137 months; district court imposed 204 months (67 months above the guideline high end) after an upward variance.
- Government sought upward variance based on violent criminal history and multiple death threats to federal officials, including a threat to an AUSA while awaiting sentencing.
- Addison urged a guidelines sentence, citing a troubled childhood and mental illness; district court emphasized offense seriousness, public protection, and criminal history.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural reasonableness of upward variance | Addison: district court failed to sufficiently justify the large variance | Government: district court provided extended, specific reasons supporting variance | Court: Procedurally reasonable; record shows the court listened and provided a lengthy, adequate explanation (ten pages) |
| Substantive reasonableness of sentence length | Addison: court gave insufficient weight to his history/mental illness; variance was excessive | Government: need to protect public and weigh extensive violent history and threats | Court: Substantively reasonable; no clear error in weighing § 3553(a) factors |
| Whether court could rely on facts already supporting guideline enhancements when varying | Addison: court should not re‑consider facts used for enhancements when imposing a variance | Government: court may rely on same facts for a variance | Court: Permitted; precedent allows reliance on factors already considered in enhancements |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (district must provide sufficiently compelling justification for variance)
- United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160 (en banc) (abuse of discretion standard; major variance requires more significant justification)
- United States v. Tome, 611 F.3d 1371 (burden on challenger to show sentence unreasonable under § 3553(a))
- United States v. Sanchez, 586 F.3d 918 (district court need not discuss each § 3553(a) factor)
- United States v. Rodriguez, 628 F.3d 1258 (district court may rely on factors already considered in guidelines enhancements)