Case: 13-10176 Date Filed: 01/02/2015 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-10176
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:10-cr-00276-MMH-TEM-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ANDREW CHASE WILKIE,
agent of Andy,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(January 2, 2015)
Before TJOFLAT, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 13-10176 Date Filed: 01/02/2015 Page: 2 of 4
Andrew Chase Wilkie appeals the concurrent prison sentences of 420
months imposed following his pleas of guilty to one count of racketeering, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), and one count of conspiracy to commit
racketeering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d). The Sentencing Guidelines
prescribed prison sentences with the range of 292 to 365 months 1 but the District
Court departed from that range under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0 due to the serious nature of
the racketeering activity the offenses involved, home invasions; Wilkie and his
cohorts robbed the victims while they were at home. The court indicated, in the
alternative, that it would have imposed the same sentences notwithstanding §
5K2.0 departure authority.
On appeal, Wilkie argues that the district court erred in departing from the
Guidelines sentence range under § 5K2.0, because the underlying basis for the
departure—robberies taking place at victims’ homes—was not a permissible
ground for a departure. He also challenges his sentences as substantively
unreasonable.
I.
Several principles govern our resolution of this appeal. For example,
procedurally, when a district court bases a sentence upon multiple, independent
grounds, the defendant must convince us that each enumerated ground is incorrect.
1
The Presentence Report correctly stated that the maximum sentence for each of these offenses
was life imprisonment.
2
Case: 13-10176 Date Filed: 01/02/2015 Page: 3 of 4
Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680 (11th Cir. 2014). If the
defendant does not adequately challenge one of the grounds, he is deemed to have
abandoned any challenge he may have to that ground. Id.
Substantively, section 5K2.0 authorizes the sentencing court to depart
upwards from the applicable guideline range if the case involves an aggravating
circumstance of a kind, or to a degree, not adequately taken into consideration by
the Sentencing Commission and fashioning the Guidelines. U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0(a).
This authority aside, we review the reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of
discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct.586, 597, 169 L.Ed.2d
445 (2007).
In evaluating substantive reasonableness, we consider the totality of the
circumstances and whether the sentence achieves the purposes of sentencing set
out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). United States v. Sarras, 575 F.3d 1191, 1219 (11th
Cir. 2009). Section 3553(a) instructs the district courts to consider the nature and
circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant, the
applicable Guidelines sentence range, and whether the sentence imposed reflects
the seriousness of the offense, deters future criminal conduct, and protects the
public. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
Even if a district court errs in applying the Guidelines or in departing
upward, remand is unnecessary if such error did not affect the overall sentence
3
Case: 13-10176 Date Filed: 01/02/2015 Page: 4 of 4
imposed: “it would make no sense to set aside [a] reasonable sentence and send
the case back to the district court [where] it has already told us that it would
impose exactly the same sentence.” See United States v. Keene, 470 F.3d 1347,
1350 (11th Cir. 2006). However, in such a case, the overall sentence must still be
reasonable. Id. at 1349.
We conclude that Wilkie’s appeal fails for two reasons. First, his brief fails
to take issue with the District Court’s alternative holding, that it would have
imposed the same sentences—as upward variances—even if a departure under §
5K2.0 were unavailable. Wilkie therefore abandoned any objection he may have
had to the variances. See Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 680. Second, even if we were to
assume error in the court’s § 5K2.0 departure, we should still affirm Wilkie’s
sentences under Keene because the record demonstrates that Wilkie’s offense
conduct included breaking into a home, holding a victim at gunpoint, tying her up,
and ransacking her house for valuables. In sum, after considering that the District
Court fully took into account the sentencing purposes set out in § 3553(a)(2), and
the fact that the sentences are well below the maximum term prescribed by statute,
we conclude that the sentences imposed are substantively reasonable.
AFFIRMED.
4