United States v. Kevin Frankas Riley, 995 F.3d 1272

Defendant Kevin Riley pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)) after officers executing a state arrest warrant found a .357 revolver and suspected drugs in his bedroom.
Riley has a lengthy criminal history beginning at age 16 (drive-by shooting) and includes multiple assaults, resisting arrest, weapons-related convictions, and pending state charges for firearms and attempted murder. He admitted possessing a stolen firearm in Mississippi.
The PSR initially included a 4-level enhancement for possessing a firearm in connection with another felony, but the government conceded lack of toxicology proof and the enhancement was removed; final offense level 12, criminal-history category II, guideline range 12–18 months; statutory maximum 120 months.
At sentencing the district court imposed a 70-month upward variance (52 months above the guideline range), citing Riley’s violent, recurring criminal conduct and apparent recidivism; the court ordered the sentence consecutive to most state sentences but concurrent with Mississippi firearm charges.
Riley objected on substantive-reasonableness grounds, arguing the court over-weighted his criminal history and ignored mitigating personal characteristics; the Eleventh Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a 70‑month upward variance is substantively unreasonable	Riley: variance (≈300%) is excessive; court over‑relied on criminal history and ignored mitigating factors	Govt: court properly weighed §3553(a) factors and could give substantial weight to criminal history; variance still well below statutory max	Affirmed — not substantively unreasonable; district court did not abuse discretion
Whether court improperly relied on prior convictions/pending charges	Riley: court relied on disputed details and pending charges	Govt: court relied on convictions and admitted conduct; court may consider criminal history broadly	Held — reliance on convictions and admissions permissible; details not necessary

United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160 (11th Cir. 2010) (abuse of discretion standard for review of sentences)
United States v. Rosales‑Bruno, 789 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir. 2015) (courts have broad leeway to weigh criminal history; substantial weight on criminal record consistent with §3553(a))
United States v. Stanley, 739 F.3d 633 (11th Cir. 2014) (variance well below statutory maximum supports reasonableness)
United States v. Shaw, 560 F.3d 1230 (11th Cir. 2009) (recidivism can be the primary basis for upward variance)
United States v. Johnson, 803 F.3d 610 (11th Cir. 2015) (recent surge in violent/firerarm conduct can justify upward variance)
United States v. Overstreet, 713 F.3d 627 (11th Cir. 2013) (affirming major upward variance for significant criminal history)
United States v. Early, 686 F.3d 1219 (11th Cir. 2012) (affirming large upward variance)
United States v. Ghertler, 605 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 2010) (district court need not recite each §3553(a) factor verbatim)
United States v. Clay, 483 F.3d 739 (11th Cir. 2007) (weight accorded §3553(a) factors is committed to the district court)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (deference to sentencing court’s reasoned decision)
Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (2003) (recidivism supports longer sentences)
Hutto v. Davis, 454 U.S. 370 (1982) (Eighth Amendment review of sentences for recidivists)
Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263 (1980) (upholding severe sentence for recidivist)