USA v. Sammie Eubanks

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-10948
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
SAMMIE EUBANKS,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
D.C. Docket No. 7:21-cr-00049-WLS-TQL-1
____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-10948 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2024 Page: 1 of 12

-- 1 of 12 --

2 Opinion of the Court 23-10948
Before NEWSOM , BRASHER , and H ULL , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
After pleading guilty, Sammie Eubanks appeals his 57-
month sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). At the time of his
§ 922(g) firearm offense in 2019, Eubanks was on state probation.
The state court revoked Eubanks’ probation and imposed a four-
year state sentence, which he was still serving at the time of his
federal sentencing in 2023.
At his federal sentencing, the district court imposed a 57-
month sentence, within the advisory guidelines range of 51 to 63
months. The district court ordered that the 57-month sentence run
concurrent to the undischarged portion of the state sentence
(which had approximately six months left). On appeal, Eubanks
argues his 57-month sentence is substantively unreasonable
because the district court improperly weighed the sentencing
factors, focused primarily on his criminal history, and failed to give
adequate consideration to the more than three years he spent in
custody before his federal sentencing, either in state custody or in
federal pretrial detention. After review, we affirm Eubanks’
sentence.
USCA11 Case: 23-10948 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2024 Page: 2 of 12

-- 2 of 12 --

23-10948 Opinion of the Court 3
I. BACKGROUND FACTS
A. 2019 Offense Conduct and State Probation Revocation
In August 2019, police officers responded to reports of a
domestic dispute at a residence in Valdosta, Georgia. During their
investigation, officers encountered Eubanks, who matched the
reported description of the man involved in the domestic dispute.
Initially, Eubanks gave officers a fake name. Eubanks later
admitted to the officers that he and his girlfriend had a verbal
dispute.
As the officers questioned Eubanks, his girlfriend
approached, and Eubanks began to back away. To prevent
Eubanks from fleeing, the officers grabbed him and pulled him to
the ground. While the officers struggled to place Eubanks in
handcuffs, Eubanks threw a loaded firearm from his body to the
ground. After restraining Eubanks, officers found bullets for the
firearm in the backpack Eubanks was wearing.
At the time, Eubanks was a convicted felon. Specifically, in
2012, Eubanks pled guilty in Georgia state court to robbery by
intimidation and aggravated assault. Eubanks was still on
probation for these prior state convictions when in August 2019,
the officers discovered the firearm and ammunition in his
possession. As a result, in January 2020, Eubanks’ state probation
was revoked, and later he was ordered to serve four years in state
prison.
USCA11 Case: 23-10948 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2024 Page: 3 of 12

-- 3 of 12 --

4 Opinion of the Court 23-10948
B. 2022 Federal Charge and Guilty Plea
Meanwhile, agents with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms, and Explosives (“ATF”) examined the firearm that was
found in Eubanks’ possession in August 2019. The ATF agents
determined that the firearm was manufactured in California and
therefore had traveled in interstate commerce to reach Georgia.
On October 14, 2021, a federal indictment was filed charging
Eubanks with the current § 922(g) firearm offense. A federal arrest
warrant was issued on October 14, 2021.
On June 7, 2022, Eubanks was arrested on the federal
warrant at Wilcox State Prison. Pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus
ad prosequendum, Eubanks was moved to federal custody. At his
initial appearance on June 9, Eubanks consented to pretrial
detention in his federal case in light of the fact that he was still
serving a state sentence anyway. Accordingly, the district court
ordered Eubanks to be detained in federal custody pending trial.
In September 2022, Eubanks pled guilty as charged in the
federal indictment without a plea agreement.
C. Presentence Investigation Report
Eubanks’ presentence investigation report (“PSI”) calculated
a total offense level of 17 and a criminal history category of VI.
Eubanks’ criminal history category was based on eleven criminal
history points for prior criminal convictions, including possession
of marijuana, serious injury by vehicle, battery-family violence,
USCA11 Case: 23-10948 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2024 Page: 4 of 12

-- 4 of 12 --

23-10948 Opinion of the Court 5
and criminal trespass in addition to the 2012 robbery by
intimidation and aggravated assault convictions.
Pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(d), the PSI added two more
criminal history points because Eubanks committed the current
§ 922(g) firearm offense while on probation for the 2012 Georgia
convictions. The resulting advisory guidelines range was 51 to 63
months’ imprisonment.
Eubanks did not object to the PSI’s facts or guidelines
calculations.
D. 2023 Sentencing
At Eubanks’ March 2, 2023 sentencing, the district court
confirmed that Eubanks had no objection to the PSI. The district
court determined that the advisory guidelines range was 51 to 63
months, as calculated by the PSI.
The government requested a sentence at the top of the
advisory guidelines range, citing Eubanks’ criminal history, which
included convictions for violent crimes and prior violations of state
probation, and Eubanks’ provision of a fake name to officers before
the firearm and ammunition were discovered.
During allocution, Eubanks accepted full responsibility for
his actions and asked the court for compassion, stating that he was
“not the same person” he was in 2019, when he was first arrested
for violating his state probation.
Eubanks asked for a 40-month sentence, a variance below
the guidelines range. In mitigation, Eubanks stressed that: (1) his
USCA11 Case: 23-10948 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2024 Page: 5 of 12

-- 5 of 12 --

6 Opinion of the Court 23-10948
verbal dispute with his girlfriend was non-violent and did not
involve the firearm; (2) he had a difficult upbringing and lost his
birth parents to incarceration at an early age; (3) the majority of his
past criminal conduct and probation violations occurred when he
was 18 or 19 years old; (4) while previously incarcerated, he
obtained his GED; (5) he had an eleven-year-old daughter he
wanted to build a relationship with upon his release; and (6) during
his almost four years in state custody since his 2019 arrest, Eubanks
had “done a lot of self-reflection,” had matured, and had not
smoked marijuana or taken any other drugs.
At his March 2, 2023 sentencing, Eubanks also pointed out
that he was still serving his state sentence, which had
approximately six months remaining. Eubanks asked the district
court to run his federal sentence concurrently so that he could go
“straight into federal custody where he’ll be able to take advantage
of whatever programs the [Federal] Bureau of Prisons has . . . that
will help him when he gets out on supervised release.” Eubanks
also asked the district court to consider the fact that he had “been
in custody for the past three years and seven months” and that,
although his offense occurred in August 2019, he was not brought
to federal court until June 2022.
After considering the PSI, the advisory guidelines range, and
the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, the district court
imposed a 57-month sentence. The district court explained that it
was “struck” by the fact that, while most of Eubanks’ prior criminal
conduct took place earlier in his life, he was “only 29 now” and was
USCA11 Case: 23-10948 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2024 Page: 6 of 12

-- 6 of 12 --

23-10948 Opinion of the Court 7
at a criminal history category VI, the highest category. The district
court also stressed that some of Eubanks’ prior offenses were
“pretty serious and resulted in harm,” including a vehicular offense
in which the struck pedestrian lost the use of his legs. The court
highlighted Eubanks’ state probation violations, including one for
failing to comply with compulsory anger management treatment
and stated that “looking across [Eubanks’] cases anger was clearly
a contributory factor to some of [his] conduct.”
The district court expressed concern that Eubanks’ current
offense stemmed from a domestic dispute, noting that domestic
disturbances can often “turn into something . . . much bigger or
worse.” The court acknowledged, however, that Eubanks did not
use the firearm during his dispute with his girlfriend and that
Eubanks had “admitted [he] had no business with a firearm.” The
district court stated that although a sentence at the top of the
advisory guidelines range could easily be justified, a “midlevel
sentence” was appropriate given Eubanks’ forthrightness and
acceptance of responsibility.
As for Eubanks’ request to run his federal sentence
concurrent to the state sentence he was still serving, the district
court recognized that Eubanks had been in state custody since
2019. The court stated that Eubanks should be punished for his
federal crime “independent of and not necessarily overlapping of
the other conduct for which you’ve been in custody.” The district
court ordered Eubanks’ 57-month sentence to run “concurrent as
of the entry of [the federal] judgment.”
USCA11 Case: 23-10948 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2024 Page: 7 of 12

-- 7 of 12 --

8 Opinion of the Court 23-10948
Further, the district court clarified that the federal sentence
was “not intended to relate back to the beginning of [Eubanks’]
state sentence,” but instead would “overlap that remaining part of
[his] sentence that [he] might have in state custody.” The district
court opined that “in view of that [state] sentence expected to be
ended this year . . . there’s adequate remaining sentence under the
federal sentence that takes into account adequate[] punishment for
the federal offense.” Eubanks objected to the substantive
reasonableness of his sentence.
On March 6, 2023, the district court entered the judgment
ordering Eubanks’ 57-month sentence “to run concurrent to the
undischarged terms of imprisonment” imposed by the Georgia
court in his 2012 criminal case for his 2019 violation of probation,
“beginning from the entry of this [federal] judgement [sic].”
II. DISCUSSION
A. Substantive Reasonableness
“We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for
abuse of discretion, considering the totality of the circumstances.”
United States v. Oudomsine, 57 F.4th 1262, 1266 (11th Cir. 2023). As
the party challenging the sentence, Eubanks bears the burden of
establishing that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light
of the record and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Id.; United States
v. Williams, 526 F.3d 1312, 1322 (11th Cir. 2008).1
1 The § 3553(a) sentencing factors include: (1) the nature and circumstances of
the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need
USCA11 Case: 23-10948 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2024 Page: 8 of 12

-- 8 of 12 --

23-10948 Opinion of the Court 9
A district court abuses its discretion and imposes a
substantively unreasonable sentence when it (1) fails to consider
relevant factors that were due significant weight, (2) gives
significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, 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). Our review of the substantive reasonableness
of a sentence involves “examining the totality of the
circumstances.” United States v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319, 1324 (11th
Cir. 2008). We will only vacate a sentence as unreasonable if we
are left with a “definite and firm conviction that the district court
committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the § 3553(a)
factors by arriving at a sentence that lies outside the range of
reasonable sentences dictated by the facts of the case.” Irey, 612
F.3d at 1190 (quotation marks omitted).
District courts have “discretion to decide how much weight
to give each § 3553(a) factor.” Williams, 526 F.3d at 1323. And
while the district court is required to consider all § 3553(a) factors,
it is permitted to attach “great weight” to one factor over others.
for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for
the law, and provide just punishment; (3) the need for deterrence; (4) the need
to protect the public; (5) the need to provide the defendant with educational
or vocational training or medical care; (6) the kinds of sentences available;
(7) the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range; (8) pertinent policy statements
of the Sentencing Commission; (9) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence
disparities; and (10) the need to provide restitution to the victims. 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a).
USCA11 Case: 23-10948 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2024 Page: 9 of 12

-- 9 of 12 --

10 Opinion of the Court 23-10948
United States v. Overstreet, 713 F.3d 627, 638 (11th Cir. 2013)
(quotation marks omitted). “Placing substantial weight on a
defendant’s criminal record is entirely consistent with § 3553(a)
because five of the factors it requires a court to consider are related
to criminal history.” United States v. Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d 1249,
1263 (11th Cir. 2015). We ordinarily expect a sentence within the
guideline range to be reasonable. United States v. Foster, 878 F.3d
1297, 1309 (11th Cir. 2018).
B. Eubanks’ 57-Month Sentence
On appeal, Eubanks argues his 57-month sentence is
substantively unreasonable because the district court did not
properly consider or give sufficient weight to the more than three
years Eubanks was in state custody “for the same federal offense
conduct” or to the nine-month period Eubanks was in federal
pretrial detention—between June 7, 2022, when he was moved
from state custody to federal custody, and March 2, 2023, when he
was sentenced. Instead, Eubanks contends, the district court
“placed primary focus on [his] criminal history.”
Eubanks has not shown that his 57-month sentence is
substantively unreasonable. During Eubanks’ sentencing hearing,
the district court stated that it had considered the § 3553(a) factors
and the advisory guidelines range. The district court specifically
noted Eubanks’ significant criminal history that was amassed by
the age of 29 and involved serious crimes, some of which had
harmed others. The district court also listened to and
acknowledged Eubanks’ arguments in mitigation, placing
USCA11 Case: 23-10948 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2024 Page: 10 of 12

-- 10 of 12 --

23-10948 Opinion of the Court 11
particular emphasis on the fact that Eubanks had not used the
firearm during his dispute with his girlfriend and readily admitted
he should not have possessed the firearm. Indeed, the district court
cited Eubanks’ forthright acceptance of responsibility for its
decision to impose a sentence in the middle of the advisory
guidelines range rather than the top. And the fact that Eubanks’
sentence falls within the advisory guidelines range is another sign
of its reasonableness. See Foster, 878 F.3d at 1309.
The district court also explicitly considered Eubanks’
request for a concurrent sentence to account for his roughly four
years in state custody, which included his nine months in federal
pretrial detention awaiting federal sentencing. Thus, the record
belies Eubanks’ claim that the district court “failed to properly
weigh” this factor. Eubanks argues the district court placed too
much weight on his criminal history, but the district court was
within its discretion to do so. See Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d at 1263;
Overstreet, 713 F.3d at 638.
Further, the district court was within its discretion to run
Eubanks’ federal sentence concurrent with only the undischarged
portion of his state sentence (which had approximately six months
left) and to begin his federal sentence from the entry of the
judgment of conviction on March 6, 2023. See 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a)
(providing terms may run concurrently or consecutively to other
undischarged terms to which the defendant is already subject);
U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(d) (providing that sentences may “run
concurrently, partially concurrently, or consecutively to the prior
USCA11 Case: 23-10948 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2024 Page: 11 of 12

-- 11 of 12 --

12 Opinion of the Court 23-10948
undischarged term of imprisonment to achieve a reasonable
punishment for the instant offense”).
In fact, the district court explained its decision to run
Eubanks’ 57-month sentence “partially concurrent” with his state
sentence and “as of the entry of the judgment,” stating that it was
necessary to provide independent punishment for Eubanks’ federal
firearm offense, which is separate conduct from his state probation
violation.2 The district court’s decision to impose the 57-month
sentence concurrent with only the undischarged portion of his
state sentence and as of the entry of the federal judgment on
March 6, 2023 was not an abuse of discretion.
AFFIRMED.
2 Eubanks’ appeal brief states in passing that the district court “declined to give
[him] credit for the months he sat in federal custody” and complains “that the
Bureau of Prisons will not give credit” for this time. However, Eubanks’ brief
does not raise any procedural error as to the district court’s imposition of his
sentence or argue that the district court erred by failing to give him “credit”
for his time in federal pretrial detention. We note, in any event, that the
Bureau of Prisons, not the sentencing court, calculates credit for time in
pretrial detention that has not been credited against another sentence. See
United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 334-35 (1992) (holding 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b)
does not authorize the district court to compute the amount of credit at
sentencing).
USCA11 Case: 23-10948 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2024 Page: 12 of 12

-- 12 of 12 --