1/1/2024 0 Comments David cross weightThe record reflects that the district court considered but was not persuaded that a lower sentence was warranted based on defendant’s claims that he did not intend for anyone to get hurt and did not understand that he could have robbed the bank without a firearm. Defense counsel urged a withinGuidelines sentence for several reasons, including that Cross was remorseful, had not intended to hurt anyone, and had acted out of desperation and poor judgment given his low intellectual Case No. The district court had before it the arguments made for mitigation based on Cross’s borderline to low-average intelligence and uncontrolled diabetes that resulted in renal failure and possibly impacted his cognitive abilities. Cross has failed to rebut the presumption that his within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. Imposing sentence at the top of that range, the district court sentenced Cross to a 63-month term of imprisonment for the bank robbery conviction, to be followed by a consecutive 120-month term of imprisonment for the firearm conviction. However, because the firearm conviction mandated a consecutive sentence of at least ten years of imprisonment, the effective Guidelines range became 171 to 183 months of imprisonment. That offense level, coupled with a criminal history category of I, resulted in a Guidelines range of 51 to 63 months of imprisonment. After a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, the total offense level for the bank robbery conviction was 24. Defendant did not object to the presentence report or the calculation of the advisory Guidelines range. On appeal, this court applies a rebuttable presumption of substantive reasonableness to a within-Guidelines sentence. The properly calculated advisory Guidelines range provides the “starting point and initial benchmark” for a substantively reasonable sentence. David Cross 2 district court selects a sentence arbitrarily, bases the sentence on impermissible factors, fails to consider relevant sentencing factors, or gives an unreasonable amount of weight to any pertinent factor.” United States v. A sentence may be substantively unreasonable “when the Case No. We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of discretion. Defendant’s appeal challenges only the substantive reasonableness of his within-Guidelines sentence, arguing that the district court failed to give proper weight to his personal characteristics. 45 caliber semi-automatic pistol fired several shots, two of which struck the bank manager and took $20,775.00 in cash before fleeing in a waiting car occupied by his two codefendants. Cross admitted in his plea agreement that he entered a federally insured bank armed with a. Defendant David Cross pleaded guilty to one count each of aiding and abetting aggravated bank robbery and discharging a firearm during that robbery. HUNT, Clerk On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee _/ Before: GUY, COOK, and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges. ![]() 14-5700 FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 15a0209n.06 No.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |