Case: 19-10012 Date Filed: 11/07/2019 Page: 1 of 7
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________
No. 19-10012 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________
D.C. Docket No. 7:17-cr-00079-LSC-JHE-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CEDRICK LAMAR COLLINS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama ________________________
(November 7, 2019)
Before TJOFLAT, BRANCH, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges. Case: 19-10012 Date Filed: 11/07/2019 Page: 2 of 7
PER CURIAM:
Cedrick Lamar Collins appeals his above-guideline 240-month total
sentence, imposed upon resentencing -- after pleading guilty to bank robbery, 18
U.S.C. § 2113(a), and hostage taking during a robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (e).
We previously vacated Collins’s sentences and remanded to the district court
for resentencing because the district court plainly erred by requiring Collins to
register as a sex offender. See United States v. Collins, 753 F. App’x 863, 866
(11th Cir. 2018) (unpublished). We stated, however, that Collins’s other
arguments on appeal -- that his sentence was procedurally and substantively
unreasonable because (1) the district court failed to explain sufficiently the reasons
for the 120-month upward variance and (2) failed to consider properly the 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, including that Collins was 18 years’ old when he
committed the robbery -- lacked merit and that we would not address the
arguments in detail. Id. at 864, n. 1. At resentencing, the district court sentenced
Collins again to a 240-month total sentence for the same reasons. Collins now
argues that the district court failed to explain adequately his sentences following
remand. He further argues that his above-guideline, 240-month total sentence was
substantively unreasonable because the district court failed to give a sufficiently
significant justification for its 120-month upward variance.
2 Case: 19-10012 Date Filed: 11/07/2019 Page: 3 of 7
Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, district and appellate courts are bound
by findings of fact and conclusions of law made by an appellate court in a prior
appeal in the same case, unless the case fits within one of the narrow exceptions to
the law-of-the-case doctrine. United States v. Anderson, 772 F.3d 662, 668 (11th
Cir. 2014). Those exceptions occur where there is new evidence, where the
appellate decision is clearly erroneous and would cause manifest injustice, or
where an intervening change in controlling case law dictates a different result. Id.
at 668-69. “The law of the case doctrine, self-imposed by the courts, operates to
create efficiency, finality, and obedience within the judicial system so that an
appellate decision binds all subsequent proceedings in the same case.” United
States v. Amedeo, 487 F.3d 823, 829 (11th Cir. 2007) (quotations and alterations
omitted).
We review the reasonableness of a sentence under the deferential abuse-of-
discretion standard of review. United States v. Foster, 878 F.3d 1297, 1304 (11th
Cir. 2018). The party who challenges the sentence bears the burden to show that
the sentence is unreasonable in the light of the record and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors. United States v. Tome, 611 F.3d 1371, 1378 (11th Cir. 2010). We review
de novo whether a district court sufficiently explained its reasons for imposing a
non-guideline sentence, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2), even if the defendant
3 Case: 19-10012 Date Filed: 11/07/2019 Page: 4 of 7
did not object to the explanation below. See United States v. Parks, 823 F.3d 990,
995 (11th Cir. 2016).
The first question we address to determine whether a sentence is reasonable
is whether the district court committed a significant procedural error. United
States v. Overstreet, 713 F.3d 627, 636 (11th Cir. 2013). The district court must
state in open court the specific reason for imposing a sentence outside the guideline
range. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2); Parks, 823 F.3d at 993. “The sentencing judge
should set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that he has considered the
parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal
decisionmaking authority.” Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007). “The
statement of reasons also serves to focus a sentencing court’s analysis of the
defendant’s offense conduct and assists appellate courts’ review of whether the
guidelines were properly applied.” United States v. Parrado, 911 F.2d 1567, 1572
(11th Cir. 1990). The needed “length and amount of detail describing the district
court’s reasoning depends on the circumstances.” United States v. Ghertler, 605
F.3d 1256, 1262 (11th Cir. 2010).
Second, we must determine whether the sentence is substantively reasonable
under the totality of the circumstances. Overstreet, 713 F.3d at 636. The district
court must impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply
with the factors listed in § 3553(a), including the nature and circumstances of the
4 Case: 19-10012 Date Filed: 11/07/2019 Page: 5 of 7
offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; the need to promote
respect for the law and protect the public from the defendant’s future criminal
conduct; and the sentencing guideline range. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
We have said that a district court abuses its discretion if it, for example,
(1) fails to consider relevant factors that were due significant weight, (2) gives an
improper or irrelevant factor significant weight, or (3) commits a clear error of
judgment by balancing the proper factors unreasonably. United States v. Irey, 612
F.3d 1160, 1189 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc). The district court’s unjustified
reliance on one § 3553(a) factor may be indicative of an unreasonable sentence.
United States v. Crisp, 454 F.3d 1285, 1292 (11th Cir. 2006). The weight given to
any specific factor is committed to the sound discretion of the district court.
United States v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Case: 19-10012 Date Filed: 11/07/2019 Page: 1 of 7
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________
No. 19-10012 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________
D.C. Docket No. 7:17-cr-00079-LSC-JHE-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CEDRICK LAMAR COLLINS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama ________________________
(November 7, 2019)
Before TJOFLAT, BRANCH, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges. Case: 19-10012 Date Filed: 11/07/2019 Page: 2 of 7
PER CURIAM:
Cedrick Lamar Collins appeals his above-guideline 240-month total
sentence, imposed upon resentencing -- after pleading guilty to bank robbery, 18
U.S.C. § 2113(a), and hostage taking during a robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (e).
We previously vacated Collins’s sentences and remanded to the district court
for resentencing because the district court plainly erred by requiring Collins to
register as a sex offender. See United States v. Collins, 753 F. App’x 863, 866
(11th Cir. 2018) (unpublished). We stated, however, that Collins’s other
arguments on appeal -- that his sentence was procedurally and substantively
unreasonable because (1) the district court failed to explain sufficiently the reasons
for the 120-month upward variance and (2) failed to consider properly the 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, including that Collins was 18 years’ old when he
committed the robbery -- lacked merit and that we would not address the
arguments in detail. Id. at 864, n. 1. At resentencing, the district court sentenced
Collins again to a 240-month total sentence for the same reasons. Collins now
argues that the district court failed to explain adequately his sentences following
remand. He further argues that his above-guideline, 240-month total sentence was
substantively unreasonable because the district court failed to give a sufficiently
significant justification for its 120-month upward variance.
2 Case: 19-10012 Date Filed: 11/07/2019 Page: 3 of 7
Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, district and appellate courts are bound
by findings of fact and conclusions of law made by an appellate court in a prior
appeal in the same case, unless the case fits within one of the narrow exceptions to
the law-of-the-case doctrine. United States v. Anderson, 772 F.3d 662, 668 (11th
Cir. 2014). Those exceptions occur where there is new evidence, where the
appellate decision is clearly erroneous and would cause manifest injustice, or
where an intervening change in controlling case law dictates a different result. Id.
at 668-69. “The law of the case doctrine, self-imposed by the courts, operates to
create efficiency, finality, and obedience within the judicial system so that an
appellate decision binds all subsequent proceedings in the same case.” United
States v. Amedeo, 487 F.3d 823, 829 (11th Cir. 2007) (quotations and alterations
omitted).
We review the reasonableness of a sentence under the deferential abuse-of-
discretion standard of review. United States v. Foster, 878 F.3d 1297, 1304 (11th
Cir. 2018). The party who challenges the sentence bears the burden to show that
the sentence is unreasonable in the light of the record and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors. United States v. Tome, 611 F.3d 1371, 1378 (11th Cir. 2010). We review
de novo whether a district court sufficiently explained its reasons for imposing a
non-guideline sentence, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2), even if the defendant
3 Case: 19-10012 Date Filed: 11/07/2019 Page: 4 of 7
did not object to the explanation below. See United States v. Parks, 823 F.3d 990,
995 (11th Cir. 2016).
The first question we address to determine whether a sentence is reasonable
is whether the district court committed a significant procedural error. United
States v. Overstreet, 713 F.3d 627, 636 (11th Cir. 2013). The district court must
state in open court the specific reason for imposing a sentence outside the guideline
range. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2); Parks, 823 F.3d at 993. “The sentencing judge
should set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that he has considered the
parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal
decisionmaking authority.” Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007). “The
statement of reasons also serves to focus a sentencing court’s analysis of the
defendant’s offense conduct and assists appellate courts’ review of whether the
guidelines were properly applied.” United States v. Parrado, 911 F.2d 1567, 1572
(11th Cir. 1990). The needed “length and amount of detail describing the district
court’s reasoning depends on the circumstances.” United States v. Ghertler, 605
F.3d 1256, 1262 (11th Cir. 2010).
Second, we must determine whether the sentence is substantively reasonable
under the totality of the circumstances. Overstreet, 713 F.3d at 636. The district
court must impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply
with the factors listed in § 3553(a), including the nature and circumstances of the
4 Case: 19-10012 Date Filed: 11/07/2019 Page: 5 of 7
offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; the need to promote
respect for the law and protect the public from the defendant’s future criminal
conduct; and the sentencing guideline range. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
We have said that a district court abuses its discretion if it, for example,
(1) fails to consider relevant factors that were due significant weight, (2) gives an
improper or irrelevant factor significant weight, or (3) commits a clear error of
judgment by balancing the proper factors unreasonably. United States v. Irey, 612
F.3d 1160, 1189 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc). The district court’s unjustified
reliance on one § 3553(a) factor may be indicative of an unreasonable sentence.
United States v. Crisp, 454 F.3d 1285, 1292 (11th Cir. 2006). The weight given to
any specific factor is committed to the sound discretion of the district court.
United States v. Clay, 483 F.3d 739, 743 (11th Cir. 2007). For example, district
courts have broad leeway in deciding how much weight to give a defendant’s
criminal history. United States v. Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d 1249, 1261, 1263–64
(11th Cir. 2015). Moreover, although the district court must consider the § 3553(a)
factors, it need not state on the record that it has considered each one of the factors
or discuss each of them. United States v. Barrington, 648 F.3d 1178, 1204 (11th
Cir. 2011).
In reviewing the substantive reasonableness of a sentence imposed outside
the guideline range, we may take the degree of variance into account and consider
5 Case: 19-10012 Date Filed: 11/07/2019 Page: 6 of 7
the extent of a deviation from the guidelines. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 47 (2007). Although no proportionality principle exists for sentencing, a major
variance from the advisory sentencing guideline range requires a more significant
justification than a minor one; and the justification must be sufficiently compelling
to support the degree of the variance. Irey, 612 F.3d at 1196. The district court
may vary upward based on conduct that was already considered in calculating the
guideline range. United States v. Williams, 526 F.3d 1312, 1324 (11th Cir. 2008).
The Guidelines generally permit consideration of juvenile criminal history. See
United States v. Chanel, 3 F.3d 372, 373 (11th Cir. 1993) (holding that U.S.S.G.
§ 4A1.2(d) applies to juvenile adjudications of guilt). Finally, a sentence imposed
well below the statutory maximum penalty is an indicator of a reasonable sentence.
United States v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319, 1324 (11th Cir. 2008).
Collins’s arguments on appeal are barred by the law-of-the-case doctrine,
insofar as we rejected them as meritless in his previous appeal. See Anderson, 772
F.3d at 668-89.
Furthermore, Collins’s sentences were reasonable. The district court
sufficiently explained its reasons for the sentences, including expressly adopting
the reasoning from his previous resentencing hearing. In addition, Collins’s 240-
month total sentence was substantively reasonable because the district court
provided a sufficiently compelling justification for the 120-month upward
6 Case: 19-10012 Date Filed: 11/07/2019 Page: 7 of 7
variance. The district court considered the nature and circumstances of the bank
robbery and hostage taking, Collins’s impact on his victims, Collins’s criminal
history, and the need to promote respect for the law and to protect the public.
AFFIRMED.