USA v. Nathan Jaron Timothy Johnson

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-13306
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
NATHAN JARON TIMOTHY JOHNSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cr-00017-AW-GRJ-1
____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-13306 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 05/09/2023 Page: 1 of 6

-- 1 of 6 --

2 Opinion of the Court 22-13306
Before WILSON, BRANCH , and L UCK , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Nathan Jaron Timothy Johnson appeals his sentence of 96-
months’ imprisonment for possession of a firearm by a convicted
felon. He argues that the district court procedurally erred in sen-
tencing him to an upward variance based on what he alleges are
two clearly erroneous findings: (1) that he undermined his ac-
ceptance of responsibility by stating that his possession of a firearm
was a “misunderstanding,” and (2) that his criminal history in-
cluded a “serious” head injury inflicted on a police officer. After
careful review of the record, we AFFIRM.1
I.
We review the reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of dis-
cretion, and a sentence must be both procedurally and substan-
tively reasonable to be affirmed. United States v. Green, 981 F.3d 945,
953 (11th Cir. 2020). A district court procedurally errs if, among
other things, its sentence is based on clearly erroneous facts. Id.
But a fact is only clearly erroneous if we are left with “a definite
and firm conviction a mistake has been made.” Id. (quoting United
States v. Dimitrovski, 782 F.3d 622, 628 (11th Cir. 2015).
1 Johnson’s pending motion to voluntarily dismiss his appeal is DENIED as
moot.
USCA11 Case: 22-13306 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 05/09/2023 Page: 2 of 6

-- 2 of 6 --

22-13306 Opinion of the Court 3
II.
In August 2020, Johnson was traveling in a car driven by a
person identified as S.G., which the police stopped for routine traf-
fic violations. During the traffic stop the police became suspicious
of the occupants and called a narcotics K-9 to the scene. The dog
signaled the presence of drugs in the car, and the police searched
the vehicle. During the search of the car, the police discovered il-
legal drugs, Florida unemployment benefit cards in other people’s
names (i.e., not Johnson’s or S.G.’s), as well as a .45 caliber pistol
and .45 caliber ammunition. While the search was ongoing, John-
son and S.G. were detained in the police cruiser, and the cruiser’s
on-board equipment recorded the two discussing what the police
would find in the car. Johnson stated he would claim responsibility
for the gun, instructed S.G. to claim she had no knowledge of the
gun and asked her to bail him out as soon as possible. Johnson was
then arrested on state charges before being re-charged in federal
court for a felon in possession of firearm or ammunition in viola-
tion of 18 U.S.C. § 924(g)(1) and § 924(e).
Regarding Johnson’s previous convictions, he was convicted
in 2011 of aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer. In that
case, Johnson was approached by officers after falling asleep in a
McDonald’s drive-thru. Johnson refused to open his car, and in-
stead put the car into reverse and struck a police officer. The officer
suffered an “injury to his head.” In another incident in 2016, John-
son was convicted of domestic battery after striking his girlfriend
on her left eye and face. Johnson was also previously convicted of
drug charges in state court.
USCA11 Case: 22-13306 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 05/09/2023 Page: 3 of 6

-- 3 of 6 --

4 Opinion of the Court 22-13306
Because Johnson had three prior qualifying felonies, Johnson
was an Armed Career Criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), and sub-
ject to that statute’s sentencing enhancements. Johnson pled guilty
pursuant to an agreement that stipulated the government would
not seek this treatment, and instead Johnson would be subject to
the 10-year statutory maximum for violations of § 924(g). In calcu-
lating his guidelines range, Johnson received 2 level credits for ac-
ceptance of responsibility and 1 level credit for timely acceptance
of responsibility. Johnson’s base offense level was 24, so the calcu-
lated offense level was 21. Given his prior convictions, his criminal
history category was IV. The calculated guidelines sentencing
range in this case was thus 51 to 71 months’ imprisonment.
Johnson’s attorneys argued for a guidelines sentence. In his
statement to the court, Johnson apologized for his actions and
stated: “I apologize for the misunderstanding. I did not know the
firearm was in the car until it was too far on the interstate to turn
around.” The government noted that Johnson’s characterization
of this incident as a “misunderstanding” was inconsistent with the
recorded conversation between Johnson and S.G., which showed
that he knew the gun was in the car and was planning with S.G.
how to manage the situation if the police discovered it. The gov-
ernment argued this tended to undercut Johnson’s acceptance of
responsibility, and showed he was being untruthful to the court.
III.
In finding the appropriate sentence, the district court consid-
ered the parties’ arguments, Johnson’s statement, and discussed the
USCA11 Case: 22-13306 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 05/09/2023 Page: 4 of 6

-- 4 of 6 --

22-13306 Opinion of the Court 5
§ 3553 factors. The court discussed its view that the guidelines
were inadequate in this case to address Johnson’s conduct. The
court found Johnson’s criminal history particularly relevant:
“[M]ost prominently this assault on the law enforcement officer.
Serious head injury.” D.E. 64 at 20:6–8 (emphasis added). The court
also found Johnson’s conviction for domestic violence to be signif-
icant. As to the acceptance of responsibility, the district court
“d[idn’t] see a lot of remorse here.” Id. at 21:6–7. But noted, “I’m
not taking away that consideration.” Id. at 21:7–8. The district
court ultimately imposed an upward variance from the guidelines
range, and sentenced Johnson to a 96-month custodial sentence fol-
lowed by three years of supervised release.
The district court’s sentence was not based on clearly erro-
neous facts, and the court did not procedurally err. First, the court
accurately noted that Johnson was convicted of assault on a law
enforcement officer and that the officer suffered a head injury.
While the district court characterized the officer’s injuries as “seri-
ous,” Johnson has not shown that characterization is clearly erro-
neous given the facts. The facts of that incident show Johnson
struck one officer with his car and caused a “head injury,” before
striking another officer with his car as he was fleeing the scene. We
decline to parse the district court’s words in order to create error
here. Further, our review of the transcript shows us that the
court’s consideration of this incident was based on the overall seri-
ousness of the conduct, and not the precise wording of the officer’s
medical diagnosis.
USCA11 Case: 22-13306 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 05/09/2023 Page: 5 of 6

-- 5 of 6 --

6 Opinion of the Court 22-13306
Next, the court did not abuse its discretion in considering
Johnson’s characterization that this case was based on a “misunder-
standing.” Johnson in fact called his possession of the gun a “mis-
understanding.” D.E. 64 at 12:10–11. Even so, the district court
explicitly noted that it was not taking away Johnson’s credit for ac-
ceptance of responsibility. Id. at 21:7–8. The court provided a thor-
ough explanation of Johnson’s criminal history, the conduct in this
case, and the court’s view that the guidelines were inadequate to
address Johnson’s crime. It remarked on Johnson’s statement at the
end to note that it was not sufficient to overcome those other ag-
gravating factors warranting an upward variance. On these facts,
the district court did not abuse its discretion.
The district court did not procedurally err in sentencing
Johnson, and he does not challenge the substantive reasonableness
of his sentence on appeal. Accordingly, we AFFIRM.
AFFIRMED.
USCA11 Case: 22-13306 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 05/09/2023 Page: 6 of 6

-- 6 of 6 --