United States v. Shawn Ruark, 24-11672

Shawn Ruark pled guilty to two counts of assault in aid of racketeering for violent assaults on two Unforgiven gang members who allegedly violated gang rules. He does not challenge his convictions or the plea colloquy.
The assaults involved forced entry, beatings, cutting/defacing tattoos, use of weapons, and in one incident use of a tattoo gun and a blowtorch; victims suffered visible scarring and one victim fled the state.
The Presentence Investigation Report (PSI) applied a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2A2.2(b)(1) for “more than minimal planning” and calculated total offense level 27; Ruark had criminal-history category IV, producing a guidelines range of 100–125 months.
The district court overruled Ruark’s objection to the § 2A2.2(b)(1) enhancements, found aggravating facts (e.g., travel to victim, weapons brought, coordinated plan), adopted the PSI, and imposed an upward variance to 180 months’ imprisonment (below the statutory maximum and below the government’s 210‑month request).
On appeal Ruark challenged (1) the application of the § 2A2.2(b)(1) enhancement and (2) the substantive reasonableness of the 180‑month sentence (arguing due‑process concerns from references to co‑defendant trial testimony, misattribution of a blowtorch, and double‑counting criminal history). The Eleventh Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Ruark's Argument	Government/District Court's Argument	Held
Whether the district court clearly erred in applying the § 2A2.2(b)(1) two‑level "more than minimal planning" enhancement	Planning was minimal: no concealment, spur‑of‑the‑moment or ordinary steps for assaults; court improperly relied on its personal estimate of travel time	Attacks were deliberate and coordinated (meeting, vote, travel, weapons brought); enhancement appropriate	Affirmed: no clear error; planning included travel time, coordination, and weapons brought, supporting the enhancement
Whether Ruark's 180‑month upward‑variance sentence was substantively unreasonable	Prosecutor relied on co‑defendant trial testimony Ruark could not rebut; blowtorch attribution unfair; variance overweights criminal history already accounted for in Guidelines	Sentence justified by grave, gratuitous, terroristic violence, Ruark’s violent history, and Guidelines range was inadequate; court acted within discretion	Affirmed: sentence substantively reasonable; any constitutional claim reviewed for plain error and not shown; variance supported by § 3553(a) factors

Trailer, 827 F.3d 933 (11th Cir. 2016) (sets two‑step procedural/substantive reasonableness review for sentences)
Crawford, 407 F.3d 1174 (11th Cir. 2005) (explains purpose of minimal‑planning enhancement)
Tapia, 59 F.3d 1137 (11th Cir. 1995) (reversing planning enhancement where evidence of planning was lacking)
Castellanos, 904 F.2d 1490 (11th Cir. 1990) (trial evidence from another trial generally cannot, without more, be used to fashion a defendant’s sentence if objected to)
Butler, 39 F.4th 1349 (11th Cir. 2022) (courts should affirm sentences that are within the ballpark of permissible outcomes)
Riley, 995 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir. 2021) (upward variances often appropriate for violent offenders; below‑maximum is a reasonableness indicator)
Utsick, 45 F.4th 1325 (11th Cir. 2022) (plain‑error standard for unpreserved sentencing claims)
Matthews, 3 F.4th 1286 (11th Cir. 2021) (district court may rely on plea admissions, undisputed PSI statements, and reasonable inferences at sentencing)