United States v. Levi Stackhouse, 679 F. App'x 746

Defendant Levi Stackhouse pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(e)(1)) and received a 200‑month sentence within the Guidelines range.
At sentencing, the district court characterized the conduct as Stackhouse having "held a gun to [Barksdale’s] head." The PSI described pointing a gun and threatening to shoot someone in the head.
Stackhouse did not object at sentencing to the district court’s factual characterization or to the sentence generally.
On appeal Stackhouse argued the sentence was procedurally unreasonable because the court relied on a clearly erroneous fact, and substantively unreasonable because the sentence was greater than necessary under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
The Eleventh Circuit applied plain‑error review for procedural objections (none made below) and reviewed substantive reasonableness for abuse of discretion.
The Court affirmed the 200‑month sentence, holding no plain error in factual finding and no abuse of discretion as to substantive reasonableness.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court relied on a clearly erroneous factual finding at sentencing	Stackhouse: court erred by saying he "held a gun to [Barksdale’s] head" instead of merely pointing and threatening — a distinct, more serious factual finding	Government/District Court: PSI supported the court’s characterization; any difference is not significant and the court may rely on PSI undisputed statements	No plain error: court’s finding was supported or at least not materially different; even if erroneous, Stackhouse failed to show prejudice to substantial rights
Whether the 200‑month sentence is substantively unreasonable under § 3553(a)	Stackhouse: sentence greater than necessary given mitigating factors	Government/District Court: sentence within Guidelines and below statutory max, properly weighed § 3553(a) factors; district court discretion on weight	No abuse of discretion: within Guidelines and below statutory maximum, court reasonably balanced § 3553(a) factors; sentence affirmed

Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (reasonableness review of sentences and deference to district courts)
United States v. Cubero, 754 F.3d 888 (11th Cir. 2014) (two‑step reasonableness framework)
United States v. Vandergrift, 754 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir. 2014) (plain‑error review where no timely objection made)
United States v. Jones, 743 F.3d 826 (11th Cir. 2014) (prejudice prong requires reasonable probability of a lighter sentence absent the error)
United States v. Barrington, 648 F.3d 1178 (11th Cir. 2011) (standard for factual error and deference to district court’s weighing of § 3553(a) factors)
United States v. Polar, 369 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir. 2004) (district court may rely on undisputed PSI statements at sentencing)
United States v. Rodriguez, 398 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2005) (appellant must show error’s effect is not indeterminate to satisfy plain‑error third prong)
United States v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319 (11th Cir. 2008) (factors showing substantive reasonableness: within Guidelines and below statutory maximum are indicia of reasonableness)
United States v. Hunt, 526 F.3d 739 (11th Cir. 2008) (expectation that within‑Guidelines sentences will ordinarily be reasonable)