United States v. Joseph Symington
682 F. App'x 729
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Joseph Symington pled guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) and, after withdrawing an earlier plea (on remand from this Court), received a 105-month sentence at the top of the advisory Guidelines range.
- The district court applied U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(2), increasing the base offense level because Symington had at least two prior felony convictions for crimes of violence under the career-offender Guideline, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2.
- Two of Symington’s prior Florida convictions were for fleeing and eluding; under Eleventh Circuit precedent, that offense has been treated as a crime of violence under the Guidelines’ residual clause.
- Symington argued Johnson (invalidating ACCA’s residual clause) meant his fleeing-and-eluding priors no longer qualified, and he also challenged the substantive reasonableness of his 105-month sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
- The panel reviewed (1) de novo whether the priors qualify as a crime of violence under the Guidelines and (2) for abuse of discretion whether the sentence was substantively reasonable.
- The Court affirmed: the career-offender residual clause remains valid for advisory Guidelines purposes (Johnson does not apply), so the priors qualify; and the within-Guidelines 105-month sentence was substantively reasonable given Symington’s extensive, dangerous criminal history.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Symington’s Florida fleeing-and-eluding convictions qualify as a "crime of violence" under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2) | Symington: Johnson invalidates residual clauses, so fleeing-and-eluding no longer qualifies | Government: Eleventh Circuit precedent treats fleeing-and-eluding as a Guidelines "crime of violence"; Johnson does not apply to advisory Guidelines | Held: Prior convictions qualify under the Guidelines’ residual clause; Johnson’s vagueness holding does not invalidate the advisory Guidelines clause (affirmed) |
| Whether the 105-month sentence was substantively unreasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) | Symington: sentence is excessive/unreasonable given circumstances | Government: within-Guidelines sentence appropriately weighs § 3553(a) factors given defendant’s extensive, dangerous criminal history | Held: Sentence is substantively reasonable; district court did not abuse its discretion (affirmed) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Symington, 781 F.3d 1308 (11th Cir. 2015) (prior appeal vacating conviction and remanding to permit plea withdrawal)
- United States v. Orisnord, 483 F.3d 1169 (11th Cir. 2007) (Florida fleeing-and-eluding qualifies as a Guidelines crime of violence under the residual clause)
- United States v. Matchett, 802 F.3d 1185 (11th Cir. 2015) (Johnson’s vagueness doctrine does not apply to the advisory Guidelines’ residual clause)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (invalidating ACCA’s residual clause as unconstitutionally vague)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard of review for reasonableness of sentences)