United States v. Willie McCloud
697 F. App'x 961
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Willie McCloud pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) after brandishing a gun during an attempted walkout over a $1 beverage.
- Presentence investigation calculated a Guidelines range of 70–87 months.
- Government moved for an upward variance; the district court sentenced McCloud to 120 months’ imprisonment.
- McCloud appealed, arguing the sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable and that the court failed to adequately explain the variance under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2).
- The Eleventh Circuit reviewed procedural reasonableness for plain error where appropriate, reviewed de novo § 3553(c)(2) explanation claims, and applied the abuse-of-discretion standard to overall reasonableness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural reasonableness / § 3553(c)(2) explanation | McCloud: district court failed to adequately explain the upward variance and consider § 3553(a) factors | Government: court considered PSI, parties’ arguments, motion for variance, and summarized reasons at sentencing | Affirmed — court satisfied § 3553(c)(2) and adequately considered arguments and factors; record permitted meaningful appellate review |
| Substantive reasonableness of 120-month sentence | McCloud: 120 months is greater than necessary and not supported by § 3553(a) factors | Government: variance justified by seriousness of brandishing a firearm and McCloud’s lengthy criminal history | Affirmed — sentence not a clear error in weighing § 3553(a); lies within range of reasonable sentences given facts |
| Standard of review for sentencing challenges | McCloud: challenging sentence reasonableness | Government: stresses deferential abuse-of-discretion standard; plain-error review if no timely objection | Court applied appropriate standards (de novo for § 3553(c)(2); abuse-of-discretion for overall reasonableness; plain error where unpreserved) |
| Consideration of § 3553(a) factors | McCloud: court didn’t explicitly address each § 3553(a) factor | Government: not required to address each factor explicitly; need only show consideration | Court reiterated that explicit recitation not required; sufficient that court considered factors and parties’ arguments |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard for review of sentencing)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (district court must provide enough reasoning to show it considered parties’ arguments)
- United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160 (11th Cir. 2010) (standard for vacating on substantive reasonableness)
- United States v. Parks, 823 F.3d 990 (11th Cir. 2016) (§ 3553(c)(2) explanation must permit meaningful appellate review)
- United States v. Vandergrift, 754 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir. 2014) (plain-error review when defendant fails to object at sentencing)
- United States v. Sanchez, 586 F.3d 918 (11th Cir. 2009) (district court need not explicitly discuss every § 3553(a) factor)
- United States v. Suarez, 939 F.2d 929 (11th Cir. 1991) (appellate review may consider full sentencing hearing record)
- United States v. Tome, 611 F.3d 1371 (11th Cir. 2010) (burden on challenger to show sentence unreasonable)