Case: 14-15438 Date Filed: 09/03/2015 Page: 1 of 8
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-15438
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:14-cr-60174-JIC-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL BROWN,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(September 3, 2015)
Before JORDAN, ROSENBAUM, and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 14-15438 Date Filed: 09/03/2015 Page: 2 of 8
Michael Brown appeals his convictions and sentences after pleading guilty
to conspiring to commit a Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a),
and to using a firearm during the commission of a crime of violence, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). The charges in this case grew out of a government
created “reverse sting” operation by which Brown and a codefendant agreed to rob
a stash house they thought contained at least fifteen kilograms of cocaine. In fact,
the stash house was a fabrication of the government, communicated to Brown by
an undercover officer who had been notified by a confidential informant that
Brown was interested in committing a “drug rip” for cocaine. During June 2014,
Brown and a codefendant met with the undercover officer and discussed details of
the home invasion. Then, in July, Brown and the codefendant were arrested at an
undercover facility where they had met to prepare for going to the stash house to
steal the drugs.
At sentencing, Brown moved for a downward variance to 78 months’
imprisonment—reflecting 18 months for the conspiracy offense and a consecutive
60 months for the firearm offense. He argued that the court should account in its
sentencing determination for the constitutionally problematic nature of reverse
sting operations and the indiscriminate use of that tool by the government in this
case. Brown did not move to dismiss the indictment, and he acknowledged, as he
2
Case: 14-15438 Date Filed: 09/03/2015 Page: 3 of 8
does on appeal, that a dismissal of the charges was precluded by this Court’s
precedent, see United States v. Sanchez, 138 F.3d 1410 (11th Cir. 1998).
The district court sentenced Brown to a total term of 90 months’
imprisonment—30 months for the conspiracy offense and 60 consecutive months
for the firearm offense. The court found that a sentence within the guideline range
of 30 to 37 months for the conspiracy offense was appropriate in light of Brown’s
two prior robbery convictions. Brown now brings this appeal.
Brown’s initial brief on appeal largely consists of constitutional and policy
arguments against reverse sting operations in general. For example, he argues that
reverse sting operations (1) are used solely to obtain convictions, not to prevent
crimes; (2) amount to entrapment; (3) discriminatorily target racial minorities and
those in poverty; (4) can be used to inflate a defendant’s sentencing exposure
through manipulation of the drug quantity or other aspects of the fake stash house;
and (5) are a waste of law-enforcement resources. He also contends that
recognition of the problematic nature of reverse sting operations is growing.
To the extent that Brown challenges the legality of reverse sting operations
in general, his argument is foreclosed by prior precedent, as he appears to
acknowledge. We have stated that “[g]overnment-created reverse sting operations
are recognized and useful methods of law enforcement investigation.” United
States v. Ciszkowski, 492 F.3d 1264, 1271 (11th Cir. 2007). And we have rejected
3
Case: 14-15438 Date Filed: 09/03/2015 Page: 4 of 8
challenges to the reverse sting method of investigation on numerous occasions.
See, e.g., Sanchez, 138 F.3d at 1413-14 (collecting cases); United States v.
Walther, 867 F.2d 1334, 1338-39 (11th Cir. 1989); United States v. Rogers, 701
F.2d 871, 872 n.1 (11th Cir. 1983). Therefore, even if we agreed with Brown’s
criticisms of the use of reverse sting operations, we are not at liberty to disregard
our prior precedent and create new law. United States v. Vega-Castillo, 540 F.3d
1235, 1236-37 (11th Cir. 2008).
To the extent that Brown argues that the government’s conduct in this
particular case violated due process, we disagree. 1 We have recognized the
possibility that the government’s investigatory conduct might be so outrageous or
reprehensible as to amount to a due-process violation, Ciszkowski, 492 F.3d at
1270-71, but we have never applied the defense to reverse a conviction, see United
States v. Jayyousi, 657 F.3d 1085, 1111 (11th Cir. 2011) (describing prior
discussions of the defense as “dicta”). The undercover officer in this case merely
provided an opportunity for Brown to commit a crime, after Brown had already
expressed an interest in committing a “drug rip” for cocaine to a confidential
informant. Brown and his codefendant readily accepted and pursued this
1
The government contends that any challenge Brown makes to his convictions is either
waived, due to his unconditional guilty plea, see United States v. Patti, 337 F.3d 1317, 1320
(11th Cir. 2003) (“Generally, a voluntary, unconditional guilty plea waives all nonjurisdictional
defects in the proceedings.”), or subject to plain-error review, because Brown did not move to
dismiss the indictment, see United States v. Madden, 733 F.3d 1314, 1320-21 (11th Cir. 2013).
Because Brown is not entitled to relief under any standard, we need not discuss whether these
arguments are waived or subject to plain error.
4
Case: 14-15438 Date Filed: 09/03/2015 Page: 5 of 8
opportunity, bringing the gun with them on the day of the supposed robbery.
Consequently, Brown has not shown that the government’s conduct in this case is
sufficiently outrageous or reprehensible to amount to a due-process violation. See
Sanchez, 138 F.3d at 1413-14.
Brown also challenges his sentence on similar grounds. First, he contends
that the government engaged in sentencing factoring manipulation by selecting a
large quantity of cocaine for the fictitious stash house. Second, he argues that the
sentencing court should have downwardly varied from the guideline range of 30 to
37 months for the conspiracy offense to account for the government’s allegedly
questionable conduct in fabricating a crime.
We review the reasonableness of a sentence under an abuse-of-discretion
standard. United States v. Moran, 778 F.3d 942, 982 (11th Cir. 2015). The district
court is required to impose a sentence that is “sufficient, but not greater than
necessary, to comply with the purposes” listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). The
party challenging the sentence has the burden of establishing that the sentence is
unreasonable. United States v. Tome, 611 F.3d 1371, 1378 (11th Cir. 2010). We
will vacate a sentence as substantively unreasonable only if “we are left with the
definite and firm conviction that the district court committed a clear error of
judgment in weighing the § 3553(a) factors by arriving at a sentence that lies
outside the range of reasonable sentences dictated by the facts of the case.” United
5
Case: 14-15438 Date Filed: 09/03/2015 Page: 6 of 8
States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1190 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
First, Brown has not shown that the government engaged in sentencing
factor manipulation. “[S]entencing factor manipulation occurs when the
government’s manipulation of a sting operation, even if insufficient to support a
due process claim, requires that the manipulation be filtered out of the sentencing
calculus.” Ciszkowski, 492 F.3d at 1270; see also United States v. Docampo, 573
F.3d 1091, 1097-98 (11th Cir. 2009); Sanchez, 138 F.3d at 1414. Brown contends
that the government manipulated his sentence by selecting an excessively large
amount of cocaine for the fictitious stash house. But “[t]he fact that the
government’s fictitious reverse sting operation involved a large quantity of drugs
does not amount to the type of manipulative governmental conduct warranting a
downward departure in sentencing.” Sanchez, 138 F.3d at 1414.
More important, though, is the fact that drug quantity simply did not factor
into Brown’s sentencing calculations. Brown’s offense level was increased by one
level because the taking of controlled substances was the object of the offense,
U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(6), but his guideline range was not affected in any way by the
amount of drugs involved. Nor was Brown subject to a statutory minimum
sentence based on drug quantity. Also, the district court did not cite drug quantity
6
Case: 14-15438 Date Filed: 09/03/2015 Page: 7 of 8
as a reason for its chosen sentence. As a result, there was no manipulation to
“filter[] out of the sentencing calculus.” Ciszkowski, 492 F.3d at 1270.
Second, Brown has not shown that his 30-month sentence for the conspiracy
offense, for a total sentence of 90 months’ imprisonment, is substantively
unreasonable under the totality of the circumstances and in light of the § 3553(a)
factors. The district court found that a guideline-range sentence for the conspiracy
offense was appropriate in view of Brown’s two prior robbery convictions.
Although the stash house was fictional, Brown did not know that, and he
demonstrated a willingness and ability to commit a serious and dangerous crime,
implicating the need, in imposing a sentence, to reflect the seriousness of the
offense, to protect the public from Brown’s future conduct, and to deter Brown and
others from similar conduct. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). Indeed, Brown’s
involvement in this case began while he was incarcerated, and he planned and
committed the instant offenses soon after his release. Also, the sentence was at the
bottom of the guideline range, and we expect that a sentence within the guideline
range is reasonable. United States v. Alfaro-Moncada, 607 F.3d 720, 735 (11th
Cir. 2010). In sum, the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing
Brown.
7
Case: 14-15438 Date Filed: 09/03/2015 Page: 8 of 8
AFFIRMED. 2
2
To the extent that Brown moves this panel to submit this appeal for en banc
consideration, the motion is DENIED. We express no opinion on the merits of that request, but
we note that Brown is free to petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 35.
8