Case: 15-10875 Date Filed: 03/22/2016 Page: 1 of 9
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-10875
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:14-cr-00136-JSM-TGW-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
AARON EDWIN REMALEY,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(March 22, 2016)
Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 15-10875 Date Filed: 03/22/2016 Page: 2 of 9
Aaron Remaley pled guilty to conspiring, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, to
distribute and to possess with the intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of
marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and was sentenced to prison of
121 months, a sentence at the low end of the sentence range prescribed by the
Sentencing Guidelines. He appeals his sentence on the grounds that (1) the district
court abused its discretion in entertaining the government’s untimely objection to
the failure of the Presentence Report (“PSI”), in applying the Sentencing
Guidelines, to include an obstruction of justice adjustment of his base offense level
under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1; (2) the district court clearly erred by finding that he
willfully obstructed or attempted to obstruct justice and thus increasing his base
offense level under § 3CC1.1; and (3) his sentence is substantively unreasonable
because, in light of the sentencing goals set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), it is greater
than necessary and does not satisfy those goals.
Upon review of the record and consideration of the parties’ briefs, we
affirm.
I.
We review a district court’s consideration of untimely objections to a PSI for
abuse of discretion. United States v. Edouard, 485 F.3d 1324, 1351 (11th Cir.
2007). Rule 32(f)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure states:
2
Case: 15-10875 Date Filed: 03/22/2016 Page: 3 of 9
Within 14 days after receiving the presentence report, the parties must
state in writing any objections, including objections to material
information, sentencing guideline ranges, and policy statements
contained in or omitted from the report.
Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(f)(1). However, if good cause is shown, a district court may
“change any time limits prescribed in this rule” or allow a party “to make a new
objection at any time before sentence is imposed.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(b)(2) and
(i)(1)(D).
Although Rule 32 vests the district court with discretion to hear untimely
objections when good cause for the delay is shown, none of our decisions have
defined what constitutes “good cause” for purposes of the rule. However, in other
contexts, we have determined that good cause exists where “some outside factor,
such as reliance on faulty advice, rather than inadvertence or negligence”
prevented the party from acting in a timely manner. E.g., Rance v. Rocksolid
Granit USA, Inc., 583 F.3d 1284, 1286 (11th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted) (finding
in a civil case that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing plaintiff’s
complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) where
the U.S. Marshall had been directed to serve the complaint but failed to do so
through no fault of the plaintiff).
We find no abuse of discretion here in the district court’s finding that the
government had good cause for raising its objection at the sentencing hearing. It is
undeniable that the government missed the 14-day window given for objections.
3
Case: 15-10875 Date Filed: 03/22/2016 Page: 4 of 9
However, the delay was understandable. The objection was based on recorded jail
calls, in which Remaley asked someone to wipe data on one of his phones that was
in the custody of the Sheriff’s Office. Although the government knew about the
calls, it was unable to access the phone data in a readable format until shortly
before the sentencing hearing. It could not raise the objection until it knew what
was on the telephone. Had the phones not contained any evidence material to the
investigation, then Remaley’s jail call could still have been interpreted as an
attempt to erase a phone but not as an attempt to obstruct justice. It was reasonable
for the government to withhold its objection until it had established that it had
grounds for the U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 enhancement. The government’s delay was not
due to “inadvertence or negligence.” Rance, 583 F.3d at 1286. Furthermore,
Remaley has not shown that he was prejudiced by the untimeliness of the
objection. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the
government to raise the untimely objection.
II.
The district court increased Remaley’s base offense level under the U.S.S.G.
§ 3B1.1 adjustment, “Obstructing or Impeding the Administration of Justice.” We
review the findings of fact on which the court based the increase for clear error; we
review de novo the court’s determination that such findings supported the
adjustment. United States v. Doe, 661 F.3d 550, 556 (11th Cir. 2011).
4
Case: 15-10875 Date Filed: 03/22/2016 Page: 5 of 9
Section § 3C1.1 provides for the increase of the defendant’s base offense
level if
(1) the defendant willfully obstructed or impeded, or attempted to
obstruct or impede, the administration of justice with respect to the
investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of the instant offense of
conviction, and (2) the obstructive conduct related to (A) the
defendant’s offense of conviction and any relevant conduct; or (B) a
closely related offense.
U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. An example of conduct deemed “obstructive” under § 3C1.1 is
attempting to destroy or conceal or have another person destroy or conceal
evidence that is material to the investigation. Id. § 3C1.1 comment. (n.4(D)).
Conduct that warrants a § 3C1.1 adjustment for obstruction of justice usually
indicates that the defendant has not accepted responsibility for his criminal conduct
enough to earn an offense level decrease under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 for acceptance of
responsibility, but there are extraordinary cases where both adjustments may apply.
Id. § 3E1.1 comment. (n.4).
We find no clear error in the district court’s finding that Remaley attempted
to have someone destroy or conceal government evidence or the court’s
determination that the finding justified a § 3C1.1 application. The first jail call
transcript revealed that Remaley instructed the listener to have two persons, who
were listed in Remaley’s contacts as being associated with Sprint, “shut down” a
number and “wipe it.” The second transcript showed Remaley was upset that
“they”—presumably Sheriff’s Office personnel—had “still been getting [his]
5
Case: 15-10875 Date Filed: 03/22/2016 Page: 6 of 9
calls.” From this evidence, the court reasonably inferred that Remaley tried to
prevent law enforcement officials from having access to information on the phone
he had with Sprint cellular service, which a government witness testified had
incriminating information on it. Although Remaley presented evidence of his
cooperation with authorities, this cooperation occurred a month or more after the
attempt to have the phone wiped, and there was testimony that the cooperation
attempts were limited and not very helpful. Thus, Remaley’s attempted
cooperation was not inconsistent with the finding of attempted obstruction of
justice. Finally, Remaley’s receipt of an acceptance of responsibility downward
adjustment under § 3E1.1 did not preclude the court from applying § 3B1.1,
especially when, as here, the attempt to obstruct justice occurred before the
acceptance of responsibility. See 3E1.1 comment. (n.4).
III.
We review the reasonableness of a sentence under a deferential abuse of
discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 128 S. Ct. 586, 591,
169 L. Ed. 2d 445 (2007). The district court must impose a sentence “sufficient,
but not greater than necessary” to comply with the purposes of sentencing set out
in 18 § 3553(a)(2), including the need to reflect the seriousness of the offense,
promote respect for the law, provide just punishment for the offense, deter criminal
conduct, and protect the public from the defendant’s future criminal conduct. See
6
Case: 15-10875 Date Filed: 03/22/2016 Page: 7 of 9
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). The weight given to any specific § 3553(a) sentencing
purpose is committed to the sound discretion of the district court. United States v.
Clay, 483 F.3d 739, 743 (11th Cir. 2007). In addition to considering the § 3553(a)
needs for a particular sentence, the court must consider the nature and
circumstances of the defendant’s offense, the defendant’s history and
characteristics, the kinds of sentences available, the applicable Guidelines sentence
range, the pertinent policy statements of the Sentencing Commission, the need to
avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities, and the need to provide restitution to
victims. Id. § 3553(a)(1), (3)-(7).
We examine whether the sentence was substantively reasonable in light of
the totality of the circumstances. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S. Ct. at 597. Although
we do not automatically presume that a sentence falling within the Guidelines
sentence range to be reasonable, we ordinarily expect such a sentence to be so.
United States v. Hunt, 526 F.3d 739, 746 (11th Cir. 2008).
Remaley does not demonstrate that his sentence was substantively
unreasonable in light of the record and § 3553(a)’s sentencing objectives. The
sentence of 121 months’ imprisonment falls within the Guidelines sentence, an
indication of reasonableness. Hunt, 526 F.3d at 746. Furthermore, the sentence
reasonably meets the sentencing goals of § 3553(a)(2) in light of the totality of the
circumstances. As the district court noted, Remaley had an extensive criminal
7
Case: 15-10875 Date Filed: 03/22/2016 Page: 8 of 9
history, and had received a number of “breaks” by the state courts for similar drug
offenses. At the sentencing hearing, Remaley asserted that this instance was
different and he knew “he need[ed] to leave his life of criminal conduct behind.”
However, it was within the court’s discretion to decide how much weight to give
any specific § 3553(a) purpose, including those advanced by Remaley. Clay, 483
F.3d 739, 743 (11th Cir. 2007). Considering Remaley’s history and propensity for
returning to drug trafficking, a custodial sentence within the guideline range was
needed to promote respect for the law, provide just punishment, and deter him
from further criminal activity. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2).
Although the district court placed specific emphasis on Remaley’s criminal
history, the record indicates that it did not do so “single-mindedly” to the detriment
of all the other § 3553(a) factors. Remaley argues that he presented mitigating
evidence; however, the weight to be given a particular factor is within the
discretion of the court. The court’s questions of Remaley indicate that it heard the
factors he advanced, but simply did not find them convincing. Remaley also
argues that in order to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities, he should be
sentenced similarly to his co-defendant. However, given that Remaley was the
leader of the organization, was responsible for a greater quantity of marijuana, and
had a higher criminal history, the disparity is not unwarranted.
8
Case: 15-10875 Date Filed: 03/22/2016 Page: 9 of 9
We find Remaley’s sentence not substantively unreasonable. And since we
find no error in his conviction, the district court’s judgment is
AFFIRMED.
9