APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS (D.C. NO. 6:10-CR-10175-MLB-1)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hartz, Circuit Judge.
United States Court of Appeals
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court
Before HARTZ, O'BRIEN, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.
Defendant Deshane Gantt pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas to brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence, see 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1), and received a sentence of 20 years' imprisonment. He
appeals his sentence, arguing that it was both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. Defendant's sentence was procedurally reasonable because the district court adequately explained why it varied from the guideline sentence, and it was substantively reasonable because the length of the sentence was not an abuse of discretion.
On November 8, 2010, Christopher Crabtree drove Defendant to the
Catholic Family Federal Credit Union in Wichita, Kansas, to commit an
armed robbery. Upon entering the credit union alone, Defendant
ordered the employees
to the floor while brandishing a 9-millimeter pistol, saying: "This
is a robbery . . .
I don't want to turn this into a homicide." R., Vol. 1 at 20. He
$7,803 from the teller drawers and fled on foot to his home. There,
arranged, Crabtree met him to drive him from his home so he would not
discovered there with the money. They hid the stolen cash in a
pillow case under
Defendant's seat. Soon, however, they were stopped by a police
failing to stop at a stop sign. The officer, aware that the car and
resembled what witnesses to the robbery had observed, asked to search
Crabtree consented and the officer found the money in the pillowcase.
A grand jury indicted Defendant on three counts: bank robbery,
brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence, and being a felon
of a firearm. Under a plea agreement he pleaded guilty to the second
count. In return the government dismissed the other two counts and
agreed to recommend a
sentence "at the low end of the applicable guideline range." Id. at
22. For a
violation of § 924(c), however, the Sentencing Guidelines do not
guideline sentencing range but only a guideline sentence, which is
mandatory minimum. See USSG § 2K2.4(b) (stating that, absent an
pertinent to this case, "if the defendant, whether or not convicted
crime, was convicted of violating section 924(c) . . . , the
guideline sentence is
the minimum term of imprisonment required by statute"). For
firearm, that minimum is seven years, to be served consecutively to
sentence. See 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A)(ii), (D)(ii). A note to the
provision states: "A departure may be warranted . . . to reflect the
seriousness of the defendant's criminal history in a case in which the
defendant is convicted of an 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) . . . offense but is
not determined to be a career offender under [USSG] § 4B1.1." USSG §
2K2.4 cmt. n.2(B).
The probation office's presentence report, to which no objection was
by Defendant or the government, described the robbery and Defendant's
background. He had been adjudicated a juvenile offender on four
including a 2006 adjudication for possessing a firearm when he was
17. In 2008
he pleaded guilty as an adult to aggravated battery, an offense
shooting a gun. He was initially placed on probation but ultimately
incarcerated about five months in prison after violating the terms of
He was released from prison a year before the credit-union robbery.
Before the sentencing hearing on April 18, 2011, defense counsel
a sentencing memorandum trying to explain Defendant's fall from
with letters from Defendant's father and an ex-girlfriend. At the
hearing itself the
district court heard statements from several persons. Three
spoke to the robbery's impact on employees. A former high-school
that Defendant had been an outstanding student, a leader well-liked
by his peers
and the staff, and a member of his class chosen to give a graduation
father and mother, married for 29 years, also spoke. His mother told
special bond with Defendant and said that he would be the next Will
famous entertainer). His father, a retired police officer, described
son as someone willing to take on many responsibilities and as the
glue among his
siblings, who included one son who had graduated from college and
college. Finally, Defendant himself spoke, stating that he was "a
who makes mistakes." R., Vol. 3 at 22.
The district court then explained the thinking behind the sentence it proposed to give. It began: "Well, this is not a sentencing guideline case.
There's a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years--seven years. A life sentence is the maximum sentence. So I can sentence anywhere from seven years to life." Id. at 23. It next discussed the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), noting the seriousness of Defendant's offense and his prior record, and expressing bewilderment at why he had turned out as he had. Emphasizing the need to protect the public, the court imposed a sentence of 20 years' imprisonment and three years' supervised release.
After Defendant said that he had no questions, defense counsel interrupted to correct the court's statement that there was no applicable guideline in the case. He pointed out that "the guideline sentence would be the mandatory minimum of seven years." Id. at 29. The court responded: "Well, I meant to say--I'm sorry--that there's no criminal history calculation in the case. But the sentence is still--an authorized sentence is still seven years to life. You agree with that?" Id. Counsel indicated that he agreed, but said that he had not received notice of the court's contemplated "departure" from the guidelines. Id. The court said that it would continue the sentencing hearing for a week. When defense counsel repeated that the guideline sentence was seven years, the court said: "Well, I'm not sure I agree with that; but if in fact that is the guideline sentence, 84 months, then you are notified here ...