USA v. Ladaris Lemmon Jackson

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-11945
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LADARIS LEMMON JACKSON,
Defendant- Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Alabama
D.C. Docket No. 2:17-cr-00107-WKW-KFP-1
____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-11945 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 02/07/2024 Page: 1 of 8

-- 1 of 8 --

2 Opinion of the Court 23-11945
Before J ILL PRYOR , NEWSOM , and B RANCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Ladaris Lemmon Jackson appeals his 24-month sentence for
violating the terms of his supervised release. Jackson argues that
his 24-month sentence is substantively unreasonable because it is
greater than necessary to achieve the sentencing purposes outlined
in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He argues that the court relied exclusively
on § 3553(a)(1) in deciding its sentence and did not provide
meaningful consideration to the other 3553(a) factors. After careful
review, we affirm.
I. Background
In 2017, Jackson was charged with being a felon in
possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (Count
One) and possession of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844(a)
(Count Two). Jackson pleaded guilty to both counts. He was
sentenced to 37 months for Count One, 12 months for Count Two,
and 3 years of supervised release. Per the terms of his supervised
release, he was not allowed to own, possess, or have access to a
firearm.
Jackson’s term of supervised release began on April 3, 2020.
On February 8, 2023, shortly before his three-year term of
supervised release expired, a probation officer petitioned the court
to revoke Jackson’s supervised release and issue a warrant for his
arrest. The officer reported that on February 5, 2023, Jackson
“discharged a firearm multiple times into a vehicle occupied by”
USCA11 Case: 23-11945 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 02/07/2024 Page: 2 of 8

-- 2 of 8 --

23-11945 Opinion of the Court 3
his ex-girlfriend and two others. While no one was injured,
Alabama state officers signed a warrant for Jackson’s arrest for
shooting or discharging a weapon into an occupied building or
vehicle. The district court issued a warrant for Jackson’s arrest.
At his revocation hearing, Jackson pleaded no contest to the
charge. All three witnesses to the shooting identified Jackson as the
man who possessed and fired the gun. Thus, the district court
concluded there was a sufficient basis for finding Jackson guilty of
the probation violation for discharging a firearm. The court
determined that it was a grade A offense and that Jackson’s criminal
history category was five. It then explained that the maximum
term of imprisonment was not more than 24 months.
Before the court imposed its sentence, Jackson presented
three forms of mitigating evidence. First, his probation officer
testified that Jackson had complied with the conditions of his
supervised release before the incident. Second, Jackson called an
investigator for the federal public defender’s office, who testified
that Jackson’s partner told her that Jackson supported his children
financially and physically, and that it was her gun that was involved
in the initial revocation petition. Third, Jackson submitted his
psychological report, in which an evaluator opined that he never
received proper mental health treatment despite having six adverse
childhood experiences and seeing a close friend and three cousins
get killed.
Jackson also apologized to the court. He argued that the
Alabama shooting was an outlier from his typical behavior, and
USCA11 Case: 23-11945 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 02/07/2024 Page: 3 of 8

-- 3 of 8 --

4 Opinion of the Court 23-11945
that he should get time served and another year of supervised
relief. The government argued that Jackson’s actions put peoples’
lives in jeopardy and asked for the full 24 months’ imprisonment.
The court sentenced Jackson to 24 months’ imprisonment.
It stated that the shooting was a serious offense and that Jackson
was fortunate that he was not charged with murder or capital
murder. The court pointed out that Jackson put the people in the
car’s lives at risk as well as innocent bystanders who could have
been hit with inaccurate shots. The court noted that while it had
read Jackson’s psychological evaluation and acknowledged
Jackson’s difficult past, it found there was no excuse for firing a gun
on a public road. Having considered the sentencing guidelines, the
18 U.S.C § 3553(a) factors, and the parties’ arguments, the court
then sentenced Jackson to 24 months’ imprisonment with 12
months of supervised release. Jackson objected to the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence and appealed.
II. Discussion
On appeal, Jackson argues that his 24-month sentence is
substantively unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to
achieve the sentencing purposes outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
After careful review, we affirm.
We review the reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of
discretion. United States v. Williams, 526 F.3d 1312, 1321–22 (11th
Cir. 2008). The party challenging a sentence bears the burden of
showing that the sentence is unreasonable. Id. at 1322. “Although
we do not automatically presume a sentence within the guidelines
USCA11 Case: 23-11945 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 02/07/2024 Page: 4 of 8

-- 4 of 8 --

23-11945 Opinion of the Court 5
range is reasonable, ‘we ordinarily . . . expect [such a sentence] to
be reasonable.’” United States v. Hunt, 526 F.3d 739, 746 (11th Cir.
2008) (quoting United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir.
2005).
On a substantive reasonableness review, we may vacate the
sentence “only if[] we are left with the definite and firm conviction
that the district court committed a clear error of judgment in
weighing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors” to arrive at an
unreasonable sentence based on the facts of the case. United States
v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1190 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc). “A district
court abuses its discretion when it (1) fails to afford consideration
to 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 in considering the proper
factors.” Id. at 1189 (quotations omitted). We consider whether a
sentence is substantively unreasonable under the totality of the
circumstances and in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors. Williams, 526 F.3d at 1322. The district court must evaluate
all of the § 3553(a) factors, but the weight given to each factor is
within the sound discretion of the district court. United States v.
Ramirez-Gonzalez, 755 F.3d 1267, 1272 (11th Cir. 2014). The district
court does not have to give all of the factors equal weight and is
given discretion “to attach great weight to one factor over others.”
United States v. Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d 1249, 1254 (11th Cir. 2015)
(quotations omitted). That said, “a district court’s unjustified
reliance on any one § 3553(a) factor may be a symptom of an
USCA11 Case: 23-11945 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 02/07/2024 Page: 5 of 8

-- 5 of 8 --

6 Opinion of the Court 23-11945
unreasonable sentence.” United States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179, 1191
(11th Cir. 2008).
The § 3553(a) factors the district court must consider
include: “the nature and circumstances of the offense and the
history and characteristics of the defendant”; “the need for the
sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to
promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the
offense” as well as to afford specific and general deterrence; and
“the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among
defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of
similar conduct.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). While the district court
should consider and properly calculate the advisory guidelines
range, it may give greater weight to other 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors. Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d at 1259. But “[t]he district court
may consider facts that were taken into account when formulating
the guideline range for the sake of a variance.” United States v.
Dougherty, 754 F.3d 1353, 1362 (11th Cir. 2014).
While a district court must consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors in determining a sentence, it need not state in its
explanation that it has evaluated each factor individually. United
States v. Ortiz-Delgado, 451 F.3d 752, 758 (11th Cir. 2006). “[A]n
acknowledgment by the district court that” it has “considered the
§ 3553(a) factors” is sufficient. United States v. Turner, 474 F.3d 1265,
1281 (11th Cir. 2007). Ultimately, the court must explain the
sentence with enough detail “to satisfy the appellate court that [it]
USCA11 Case: 23-11945 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 02/07/2024 Page: 6 of 8

-- 6 of 8 --

23-11945 Opinion of the Court 7
has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis” for
its decision. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007).
The district court did not abuse its discretion because
Jackson’s 24-month sentence is not substantively unreasonable
considering the totality of the circumstances. While Jackson
argues that the court considered only § 3553(a)(1), the court said
that it considered the § 3553(a) factors as well as the parties’
arguments when determining Jackson’s sentence.1 This is
sufficient. See Ortiz-Delgado, 451 F.3d at 758; Turner, 474 F.3d at
1281. And the court considered Jackson’s mitigating evidence—
such as the testimony from his hearing, his psychological report,
the fact that he supports his children, and his rough upbringing—
but determined that it was outweighed by “the nature and
circumstances of the offense,” the need to protect the public, and
deterrence. Further, the court properly considered and weighed
the fact that Jackson, who was on supervised release for possessing
a firearm, violated his supervised release by possessing and
shooting a firearm at others.
1 Jackson also argues that the court considered an inappropriate factor when it
discussed unrelated incidents in which children were hit with stray bullets.
But the court was not, as Jackson accuses, “rel[ying] heavily upon facts that
were not in evidence” by discussing these incidents. In context, the court was
simply using them to underscore the dangers of firing a weapon on a public
road.
USCA11 Case: 23-11945 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 02/07/2024 Page: 7 of 8

-- 7 of 8 --

8 Opinion of the Court 23-11945
Thus, the court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing
Jackson to 24 months’ imprisonment with 12 months of supervised
release.
AFFIRMED.
USCA11 Case: 23-11945 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 02/07/2024 Page: 8 of 8

-- 8 of 8 --