Case: 13-13695 Date Filed: 06/10/2014 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-13695
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:12-cr-00105-JES-DNF-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JACOB FRANK SCOTT,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
No. 13-13696
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:13-cr-00031-JES-UAM-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
Case: 13-13695 Date Filed: 06/10/2014 Page: 2 of 6
JACOB FRANK SCOTT,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
No. 13-13697
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:13-cr-00037-JES-DNF-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JACOB FRANK SCOTT,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(June 10, 2014)
Before PRYOR, MARTIN, and COX, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
2
Case: 13-13695 Date Filed: 06/10/2014 Page: 3 of 6
Jacob Scott appeals his 180-month sentence following his plea of guilty to
three separate counts of bank robbery (charging robbery of banks in three separate
states) in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). Scott contends that his 180-month
sentence is procedurally and substantively unreasonable. He also argues that the
district court neglected “to comply with the mandate of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2),
which requires that if the district court imposes a sentence outside the guideline
range, it must explain ‘the specific reason’ for that sentence.” (Appellant’s Br. at
18).
Scott contends that his total sentence is procedurally unreasonable because:
(1) the district court failed to adequately explain the reason for its substantial
upward variance; (2) the court gave little weight to the advisory guideline range;
(3) the court failed to adequately explain why his criminal history required an
upward variance; and (4) the court failed to adequately address his mitigation
arguments. In light of the record and arguments by the parties, Scott fails to
demonstrate that his total sentence was procedurally unreasonable. The district
court correctly calculated Scott’s guideline range and explicitly stated that it
considered all of the factors in § 3553(a). (R. 46 at 17); see also United States
v. Scott, 426 F.3d 1324, 1330 (11th Cir. 2005) (holding it is sufficient for a district
court to state that it has considered the § 3553(a) factors). It further emphasized
3
Case: 13-13695 Date Filed: 06/10/2014 Page: 4 of 6
Scott’s tumultuous personal history, his criminal history, the seriousness of the
offenses, and the need to protect the public as reasons for sentencing him above the
guideline range. (R. 46 at 17). The district court explained Scott’s total sentence
adequately and provided a “sufficiently compelling” justification for imposing the
upward variance.
Additionally, Scott argues that his total sentence was substantively
unreasonable because: (1) it was greater than necessary and (2) the district court
failed to adequately consider the advisory guideline range, his difficult childhood,
his mental illnesses and drug addictions, and the overrepresentation of his criminal
history. Scott’s 180-month total sentence was also substantively reasonable under
the totality of the circumstances and in light of the §3553(a) factors. Scott argues
that the district court failed to afford adequate consideration to relevant § 3553(a)
factors in imposing a total sentence that was greater than necessary. (Appellant’s
Br. at 19). This argument is without merit. “[S]ignificant reliance on a single
factor does not necessarily render a sentence unreasonable,” and this court has held
that the weight given to any specific § 3553(a) factor is in the sole discretion of the
district court. United States v. Kuhlman, 711 F.3d 1321, 1327 (11th Cir. 2013).
Further, this court views a sentence that is well below the statutory maximum as an
indicator of reasonableness. See United States v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319, 1324
4
Case: 13-13695 Date Filed: 06/10/2014 Page: 5 of 6
(11th Cir. 2008) (noting that the sentence was well below the statutory maximum
in concluding that the sentence was reasonable). Here, the court considered the §
3553(a) factors and gave particular weight to Scott’s substantial criminal history,
the need to protect the community, and the nature and seriousness of the offense
conduct. (R. 46 at 17, 22). In light of the seriousness of Scott’s current offenses,
his prior offenses, including the frequency and number of offenses, the fact that the
total sentence was well below the statutory maximum, and the court’s
consideration of the § 3553(a) factors, Scott’s total sentence of 180 months was
substantively reasonable.
Scott also argues that his total sentence is in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
3553(c)(2) because the district court failed to adequately explain the major upward
variance. He argues that the district court ran afoul of § 3553(c)(2) because it did
not state a “specific reason” for imposing a total sentence outside the guideline
range. See 18 U.S.C. §3553(c)(2); (Appellant’s Br. at 18–20, 23).
The district court discussed Scott’s lengthy and substantial criminal history,
the serious nature of the current offense conduct, the need to protect the
community, and the inadequacy of the guidelines as calculated in imposing the
above-guideline total sentence. (R. 46 at 17, 22). Accordingly, because the district
court clearly articulated its reasons for imposing an above-guideline total sentence
5
Case: 13-13695 Date Filed: 06/10/2014 Page: 6 of 6
in its oral pronouncement at sentencing, the district court complied with §
3553(c)(2).
AFFIRMED.
6