[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-11642 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Non-Argument Calendar OCTOBER 15, 2010
________________________ JOHN LEY
CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 2:09-cr-00044-WKW-WC-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
WILLIE JAMES HASLEY,
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Alabama
________________________
(October 15, 2010)
Before TJOFLAT, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Willie James Hasley pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted
felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and the district court sentenced him to
prison for term of 18 months, at the low end of the Guidelines sentencing range of
18 to 24 months. Hasley appeals his sentence on two grounds. First, the district
court erred in refusing to reduce his base offense level of 14 by six levels pursuant
to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(2) because he possessed the firearm for a lawful sporting
purpose. According to Hasley, the court should have granted him the reduction
because he was hunting raccoons, a lawful game animal, with a weapon lawful for
hunting such an animal and in raccoon hunting season. Second, his sentence is
substantively unreasonable because the court improperly considered offenses for
which he was arrested but never convicted and his personal characteristics,
including the facts that he dropped out of high school in the 11th grade, has an IQ
of 51, and has been classified as mildly mentally retarded and as a schizophrenic,
mitigated in favor of a lower sentence.
I.
Section 2K2.1 of the Guidelines applies to firearm offenses, including
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a). In relevant
part, § 2K2.1 provides that, “[i]f the defendant . . . possessed all ammunition and
firearms solely for lawful sporting purposes or collection, and did not unlawfully
discharge or otherwise unlawfully use such firearms or ammunition, decrease the
2
offense level determined above to level 6.” U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(2). The
commentary to the Guidelines provides that, “lawful sporting purposes or
collection [i]s determined by the surrounding circumstances . . . includ[ing] the
number and type of firearms, the amount and type of ammunition, the location and
circumstances of possession and actual use, the nature of the defendant’s criminal
history (e.g., prior convictions for offenses involving firearms), and the extent to
which possession was restricted by local law.” U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1, comment. (n.6).
A district court should review all of these surrounding circumstances when
determining the applicability of § 2K2.1(b). United States v. Skinner, 968 F.2d
1154, 1156 (11th Cir. 1992).
We find no clear error in the district court’s finding that Hasley did not
possess the shotgun and ammunition “solely for lawful sporting purposes.” As an
initial matter, the evidence regarding Hasley’s hunting violations under Alabama
law and additional prior hunting violations was undisputed. Although Hasley
argues that, in applying § 2K2.1(b), a court should focus primarily on the
lawfulness of the sporting activity, including whether the game hunted could
lawfully be hunted, whether the firearm possessed could be used to hunt that
game, and whether the game was in season, the Guidelines expressly requires the
court to consider a broader list of factors, including “the number and type of
3
firearms, the amount and type of ammunition, the location and circumstances of
possession and actual use, the nature of the defendant’s criminal history (e.g., prior
convictions for offenses involving firearms), and the extent to which possession
was restricted by local law.” U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 comment. (n.6). Because Hasley’s
interpretation would have required the court to ignore a number of relevant
circumstances listed in the Guidelines, his argument fails.
Hasley was cited for, and pled guilty to, several Alabama hunting violations
committed while he was possessing the shotgun, including hunting and trapping
without a license. The undisputed facts demonstrate that his hunting activity was
in violation of state law; hence, the court did not err in denying him the
§ 2K2.1(b)(2) base offense level reduction.
II.
We determine whether a sentence is substantively unreasonable under the
abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 56,
128 S.Ct. 586, 600, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). Our review is deferential. If, as
here, the sentence is within the Guidelines sentencing range, we ordinarily expect
that it is reasonable. United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir. 2005).
When reviewing a sentence for reasonableness, we evaluate whether the
sentence imposed by the district court fails to achieve the purposes of sentencing
4
under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). Id. at 788. While a district court is required to
evaluate all of the § 3553(a) factors, it is permitted to attach greater weight to one
factor over others. United States v. Shaw, 560 F.3d 1230, 1237 (11th Cir. 2009),
cert. denied, 129 S.Ct. 2847 (2009). Thus, a defendant’s personal disagreement
with the court’s assessment of one or more of the factors will not be a sufficient
reason to vacate as unreasonable a district court’s careful consideration of the §
3553(a) factors. See United States v. Valnor, 451 F.3d 744, 752 (11th Cir. 2006).
Hasley has failed to demonstrate that his sentence is unreasonable. The
record establishes that the court considered his arguments and all of the § 3553(a)
factors, and it sufficiently set forth a reasoned basis for its sentence. His position
that the court should not have considered his prior arrests that did not result in
convictions, is meritless. Shaw, 560 F.3d at 1232-35, 1239-40.
AFFIRMED.
5