Case: 12-16404 Date Filed: 09/18/2013 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-16404
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cr-20201-JAL-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CEDRIC JAY HALL,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(September 18, 2013)
Before WILSON, PRYOR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 12-16404 Date Filed: 09/18/2013 Page: 2 of 5
Cedric Jay Hall appeals his sentence of imprisonment based on his
convictions of interfering with commerce by robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), and
possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, id. § 924(c)(1)(A).
Hall argues that the district court plainly erred by sentencing him to a mandatory
minimum sentence of seven years based on a finding by the court, not the jury, that
Hall brandished a firearm during a robbery, id. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). We conclude,
based on the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Alleyne v. United States, 570
U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013), that the district court plainly erred in sentencing
Hall, but the error did not affect his substantial rights. We affirm.
The record establishes, without dispute, that Hall brandished a firearm
during a robbery. At trial, three employees present during the robbery of a Radio
Shack in Miami, Florida, identified Hall as the robber and testified that he
displayed a firearm and racked it in their presence before instructing them to open
the cash register and go to the back of the store. During the trial, the jury also
watched a surveillance video, admitted without objection, that depicted a robber,
identified by an employee as Hall, pulling out a firearm and racking it in the store.
The probation officer alleged in his presentence investigation report that, during
the robbery, Hall removed a black semi-automatic pistol, racked the slide back and
told one of the employees to open the cash register. The report recommended a
sentencing guideline range for Hall’s firearm offense of seven years of
2
Case: 12-16404 Date Filed: 09/18/2013 Page: 3 of 5
imprisonment, which is the statutory minimum for brandishing a firearm during a
crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). Hall offered no factual or legal
objections to the presentence investigation report. The district court adopted the
factual findings and guideline calculations in the report.
Hall argues that, in the light of the recent decision in Alleyne, the district
court erred by not submitting the question whether he brandished the firearm to the
jury. When a defendant fails to object to allegations of fact in a presentence
investigation report, the defendant admits those facts for purposes of sentencing,
and “[a] sentencing court’s findings of fact may be based on undisputed statements
in the [report].” United States v. Bennett, 472 F.3d 825, 832 (11th Cir. 2006).
And when a defendant fails to object to a finding by the district court at sentencing,
we review for plain error. United States v. Rodriguez, 398 F.3d 1291, 1298 (11th
Cir. 2005). To establish plain error, a defendant must show (1) an error (2) that is
plain and (3) that affects his substantial rights. Id. If all three conditions are met,
we may exercise our discretion to notice a forfeited error, but only if “the error
seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial
proceedings.” Id. In Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S. Ct. 2348,
2362–63 (2000), the Supreme Court held that, “[o]ther than the fact of a prior
conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed
statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable
3
Case: 12-16404 Date Filed: 09/18/2013 Page: 4 of 5
doubt.” The Court later clarified that facts guiding judicial discretion below a
statutory maximum sentence need not be submitted to a jury. Harris v. United
States, 536 U.S. 545, 565, 122 S. Ct. 2406, 2418 (2002). But in Alleyne, the Court
overruled its decision in Harris and held that “facts that increase mandatory
minimum sentences must be submitted to the jury.” 570 U.S. at ___, 133 S. Ct. at
2163 (concluding that a jury must find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the
defendant brandished a firearm during a crime of violence). Notably, in Alleyne,
the defendant objected to the recommendation in the presentence investigation
report of a mandatory minimum sentence of seven years and argued that the jury
had not found that he had brandished a firearm.
Based on the decision in Alleyne, the district court committed plain error by
not submitting to the jury the question whether Hall brandished a firearm during
the robbery, but the error does not require reversal because Hall’s substantial rights
were unaffected. Rodriguez, 398 F.3d at 1298. Three witnesses at trial identified
Hall as the robber, and they testified that he displayed a firearm and racked it in
their presence. The jury also viewed a surveillance video from the night of the
robbery, which depicted Hall pulling out a firearm and racking it in the store. And
Hall made no factual or legal objections to the presentence investigation report,
which stated that he removed a black semi-automatic pistol and racked the slide
back in the store and recommended a sentence of seven years of imprisonment as
4
Case: 12-16404 Date Filed: 09/18/2013 Page: 5 of 5
the statutory mandatory minimum, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). In contrast with
the defendant in Alleyne, Hall conceded at sentencing that he had brandished a
firearm during the robbery. We affirm his sentence.
AFFIRMED.
5