Case: 13-13537 Date Filed: 05/21/2014 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-13537
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:13-cr-00142-JDW-MAP-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
TYRONE MICHAEL BRINKLEY,
a.k.a. Franklin Bond,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(May 21, 2014)
Before HULL, MARCUS and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
Case: 13-13537 Date Filed: 05/21/2014 Page: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Tyrone Brinkley appeals his sentence of imprisonment for 96 months
following his guilty plea to one count of bank burglary, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), and
three counts of bank larceny, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(b). Brinkley argues that the district
court failed to explain how it applied an upward departure under the Sentencing
Guidelines, U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3, and that it entered a sentence that is procedurally
and substantively unreasonable. We affirm.
We review the reasonableness of a sentence under a deferential standard for
abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 596, 597
(2007). A district court has no duty to “articulate his findings and reasoning with
great detail.” United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1195 (11th Cir. 2010) (en
banc). The district court instead must make clear that it has considered the parties’
arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising its discretion. Rita v. United
States, 551 U.S. 338, 356, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2468 (2007). And the district court
need not discuss each of the statutory factors, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), for sentencing.
United States v. Scott, 426 F.3d 1324, 1329 (11th Cir. 2005). Even if the district
court errs in its application of the Sentencing Guidelines, the error is harmless if
the record establishes that the district court would have entered the same sentence
without the error. Id.
2
Case: 13-13537 Date Filed: 05/21/2014 Page: 3 of 4
We need not decide whether the district court erred in its upward departure
because any error was harmless. The district court alternatively varied above the
advisory guideline range to enter the same sentence. The real issue is whether
Brinkley’s sentence is substantively reasonable.
Brinkley’s sentence is reasonable. Even though the presentencing
investigation report placed Brinkley’s criminal history in category VI, the vast
majority of his criminal record went unscored, and his advisory guideline range
was for 27 to 33 months of imprisonment. Of the 48 adult convictions listed in the
report, only 5 counted toward Brinkley’s criminal history. Many of his convictions
involved some form of breaking and entering, and most of those convictions
involved banks. The district court found Brinkley’s advisory guideline range
“shocking” and “mind-boggling.” The district court also found that Brinkley
committed the federal offenses to which he pleaded guilty only a few weeks after
being released from a prison in North Carolina where he had served a lengthy
sentence that “did not have a sufficient deterrent effect on him.” That finding
establishes that the district court considered the need for the sentence to “afford
adequate deterrence to criminal conduct.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(B). The district
court also made participation in a mental health program a special condition of
Brinkley’s sentence. And Brinkley’s sentence is well below the statutory
3
Case: 13-13537 Date Filed: 05/21/2014 Page: 4 of 4
maximum sentence of 20 years of imprisonment. The district court did not abuse
its discretion. We affirm Brinkley’s sentence.
AFFIRMED.
4