United States v. Sanders

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BRANDON SANDERS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 24-3249

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

October 25, 2024

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Before: MOORE, THAPAR, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

DAVIS CIRCUIT JUDGE

Defendant-Appellant Brandon Sanders appeals the district court's denial of his motion to reduce and modify his sentence following the amendment of a provision of the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual ("U.S.S.G"). Sanders argues that the district court, in adjudicating his motion, failed to adequately consider certain statutory sentencing factors. The district court found that although Sanders qualified for a sentence reduction under Amendment 821 to the Sentencing Guidelines, his extensive criminal history, the need for effective deterrence, and the safety of the public weighed against his requested relief. For the reasons below, we AFFIRM.

I.

In 2013, Sanders received a nine-year state prison sentence for aggravated robbery. He completed his sentence in late 2021 and four months later, while still on post-release control for aggravated robbery, Sanders committed four unarmed bank robberies. Even though Sanders was not armed, during three of the robberies, he presented the bank tellers with a note indicating that he had a gun. During the other robbery, the note stated that he "may or may not have a gun." (R. 18 at PageID 70, ¶ 8). He netted a little over $8,000 from these robberies.

A federal grand jury indicted Sanders on four counts of bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (f) and he pleaded guilty to all four counts. The probation office prepared a presentence report ("PSR") in which it calculated a total offense level of 25 under the Sentencing Guidelines. This offense level included a two-point enhancement on each of the four counts for making a threat of death. The PSR assessed Sanders eight criminal history points for his prior convictions. And because he was on post-release control when he committed the four bank robberies, he received two additional "status points" under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1. This brought his total criminal history score to 10, which placed him in a criminal history category V and resulted in an advisory Guidelines range of 100-125 months' imprisonment.

The district court sentenced Sanders to a within-Guidelines term of 120 months' imprisonment to be followed by a three-year term of supervised release. In discussing the § 3553(a) factors, the district court found that Sanders's commission of essentially the same crime shortly after his release from his state sentence merited a longer sentence than his previous one. The court next examined the seriousness of the robberies and their impact on the victims, noting that the victims would never fully recover from the terror and trauma Sanders caused. The court then discussed rehabilitation, highlighting the substance-abuse resources available to Sanders in prison. Lastly, before pronouncing sentence, the court acknowledged Sanders's family support and the hopeful letter submitted by his fiancee. Sanders appealed his sentence, and we affirmed. See United States v. Sanders, No. 22-4051, 2024 WL 21573 (6th Cir. Jan. 2, 2024).

In March 2024, Sanders moved to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and the Sentencing Commission's amendment to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1, which took effect in November 2023. See U.S.S.G. Amendment 821. Part A of Amendment 821 reduces the previous two-point adjustment for committing an offense while under any criminal justice sentence to a one-point adjustment. Based on the Amendment, Sanders requested a revised sentence of 92 months. He argued that the newly-applicable one-point adjustment would decrease his criminal history category V to IV, and result in a corresponding Guidelines-range reduction to 84-105 months' imprisonment. He also updated the court on his rehabilitation progress since he began serving his sentence, advising that he had completed eight educational programs and received no incident reports. His Bureau of Prisons record and educational certifications corroborate his representations to the court. The government opposed Sanders's request for a sentence reduction due to publicsafety concerns. The government argued that Sanders's constant involvement with the criminal justice system proves his resistance to rehabilitation and potential danger to the community.

The district court denied the motion. The court found that Sanders was eligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 821, but the § 3553(a) sentencing factors weighed heavily against granting his requested relief. Of particular concern to the court was Sanders's extensive history of misconduct, which included 148 conduct reports while incarcerated for his prior armed-robbery offense. The court also observed that Sanders's previous nine-year sentence for armed robbery apparently did not deter future criminal conduct, as Sanders committed the four bank robberies underlying his current sentence mere months after completing that sentence. And he did so while still wearing the GPS ankle monitor that was required as part of his post-release supervision. In denying the request for a reduced sentence, the court concluded that Sanders continues to pose a threat to public safety based on his history of "violent and aggressive behavior" throughout each stage of his life. (R. 43, PageID 246). The court remarked that it would have arrived at the same sentence even if Amendment 821 had been in effect at the time of original sentencing.

Sanders timely appealed the district court's decision, arguing that the court (1) did not adequately consider all the applicable sentencing factors, and (2) failed to use the new Guidelines range as its starting point and benchmark.

II.

We review the denial of a motion for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(1)(B) for abuse of discretion. United States v. Woods, 949 F.3d 934, 938 (6th Cir. 2020). "A district court abuses its discretion when it relies on clearly erroneous findings of fact, applies the law improperly, or applies the incorrect legal standard." United States v. Watkins, 625 F.3d 277, 280 (6th Cir. 2010).

III.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Sanders's motion for a sentence reduction. Generally, a court has no authority to change or modify a defendant's sentence unless a statute expressly grants that authority. United States v. Curry, 606 F.3d 323, 326 (6th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). Section 3582(c)(2) authorizes a district court to reduce a sentence when a defendant's initial sentence was "based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission." 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). In November 2023, the Sentencing Commission amended § 4A1.1 so that it now directs the district court to:

Add 1 point if the defendant (1) receives 7 or more points under subsections (a) through (d), and (2) committed the instant offense while under any criminal justice sentence, including probation, parole, supervised release, imprisonment, work release, or escape status.

U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(e). The principal change from the prior version of the provision is that a defendant will now receive one rather than two "status points" for committing an offense while under a criminal justice sentence-and even then, only when the defendant has seven or more criminal history points. A separate amendment-Amendment 825-made the change retroactive beginning February 1, 2024. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.7.

There is no dispute about Sanders's eligibility for a sentence reduction under Amendment 821. At his original sentencing, the court found that Sanders had eight criminal history points and assessed him two more status points for committing his offenses while on parole. He therefore met the criteria for Amendment 821. After determining eligibility, the sentencing court must then "consider any applicable § 3553(a) factors" before deciding whether to grant a sentence reduction. Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 827 (2010). These factors include: the nature and circumstances of the offense; the defendant's history and characteristics; the seriousness of the offense; to promote respect for the law; and to ensure just punishment; the need for adequate deterrence; the protection of the public; and providing the defendant with needed training, care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1)-(2).

"We review sentences for procedural and substantive reasonableness.... In examining the resentencing decision for procedural error, we look to whether the court has engaged in a 'thorough renewed consideration of the § 3553(a) factors.'" United States v. Bailey, 27 F.4th 1210, 1214 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 143 S.Ct 267 (2022) (quoting United States v. Boulding, 960 F.3d 774, 784 (6th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted)). Substantive reasonableness "considers whether the length of the sentence itself is reasonable given 'the totality of the circumstances.'" United States v. Gardner, 32 F.4th 504, 529 (6th Cir. 2022) (quoting United States v. Wandahsega, 924 F.3d 868, 886 (6th Cir. 2019)). "A sentence is substantively unreasonable if the district court selects the sentence arbitrarily, bases the sentence on impermissible factors, fails to consider pertinent § 3553(a) factors or gives an unreasonable amount of weight to any pertinent factor." United States v. Melton, 782 F.3d 306, 312 (6th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted). Conversely, we have held that a sentence is substantively reasonable "if it is proportionate to the seriousness of the circumstances of the offense and...