[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
January 5, 2010
JOHN LEY
No. 08-11149 ACTING CLERK
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 06-00026-CR-CDL-4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RIVIERE MARSHALL,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
_________________________
(January 5, 2010)
Before BARKETT, HULL and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Riviera Marshall appeals his conviction and 360-month sentence for
kidnapping, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1201. The evidence adduced at trial
showed that Marshall and two codefendants, while armed, entered into and
ransacked a home occupied by a mother and her one-year-old child, transported
them to another home in search of drugs and money, and then took the child across
state lines and demanded ransom money from the child’s family. On appeal,
Marshall first contends that his rights to due process and a speedy trial, pursuant to
the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, were violated by the government’s excessive pre-
indictment and post-indictment delays. Second, he argues that his sentence was
procedurally and substantively unreasonable.
I. Right to Due Process and Speedy Trial
A. Pre-Indictment Delay
Because Marshall did not raise a challenge to the pre-indictment delay
before the district court, we review his claim for plain error only. See United
States v. Dowling, 403 F.3d 1242, 1247 (11th Cir. 2005). We may only correct
plain error where the defendant demonstrates that there is (1) error, (2) that is plain,
and (3) that affects substantial rights so as to seriously affect the fairness, integrity,
or public reputation of judicial proceedings. United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d
1012, 1019 (11th Cir. 2005). “A plain error is an error that is obvious and is clear
under current law.” United States v. Humphrey, 164 F.3d 585, 588 (11th Cir.
2
1999) (internal quotation marks omitted).
To prove a Fifth Amendment due process violation resulting from a
pre-indictment delay, the defendant bears the burden to show: (1) actual prejudice
to his defense from the delay; and (2) that the delay resulted from a deliberate
design by the government to gain a tactical advantage. United States v. Thomas,
62 F.3d 1332, 1339 (11th Cir. 1995). Marshall has not satisfied this “very heavy
burden.” Stoner v. Graddick, 751 F.2d 1535, 1540 (11th Cir. 1985).
The indictment of Marshall one year and twelve days after his crime
occurred was well within the limitations period for kidnapping a minor child,
which is the longer of the life of the child or ten years after the offense. 18 U.S.C.
§ 3283. Marshall nonetheless claims that the pre-indictment delay caused him
substantial prejudice. These claims are merely speculative. Marshall proffers no
evidence that eyewitness Daphne Wilson’s ability to identify him at his federal trial
but not at the state court proceeding two days after the crime resulted from the pre-
indictment delay. Nor does he provide any support for his claim that but for the
delay his codefendant Darrell Joseph would have testified in his support at trial.
Moreover, there was other substantial evidence at trial that implicated Marshall in
the kidnapping, including forensic evidence placing him at the site of the offense
and eyewitness testimony of his custody of the baby immediately following the
3
kidnapping.
Even if Marshall could establish prejudice resulting from the one-year pre-
indictment delay, he has not attempted to identify any conduct by the government
evidencing intentional delay tactics. Even where no good, detailed reason for the
delay exists, we will not provide relief due to a pre-indictment delay unless there is
evidence of bad faith or intent to gain a tactical advantage. See Stoner, 751 F.2d at
1543. Therefore, he has failed to meet his burden of showing that the delay
resulted from a deliberate design by the government to gain a tactical advantage.
See Thomas, 62 F.3d at 1339; Stoner, 751 F.2d at 1543. Accordingly, he did not
establish a Fifth Amendment violation to require reversal under our plain-error
review.
B. Post-Indictment Delay
The Sixth Amendment provides that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the
accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy . . . trial.” U.S. Const. amend. VI. We
also review Marshall’s Sixth Amendment speedy trial challenge for plain error
because he did not raise the issue before the district court. See Dowling, 403 F.3d
at 1247. In Barker v. Wingo, the Supreme Court identified four factors that should
be considered in determining whether the defendant’s constitutional right to a
speedy trial has been violated: (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reason for the
4
delay; (3) the defendant’s assertion of his right; and (4) prejudice to the defendant.
407 U.S. 514, 530–32, 92 S. Ct. 2182, 2192–93 (1972). The defendant must
demonstrate a “presumptively prejudicial” period of delay under the first factor
before we will weigh the additional Barker factors. United States v. Register, 182
F.3d 820, 827 (11th Cir. 1999).
The Sixth Amendment speedy trial protection attaches when an individual
becomes an accused by arrest or indictment. United States v. Marion, 404 U.S.
307, 320–21, 92 S. Ct. 455, 463 (1971). Marshall’s trial began approximately
fifteen months after his indictment. We have determined that a delay approaching
one year is presumptively prejudicial. United States v. Schlei, 122 F.3d 944, 987
(11th Cir. 1997). However, the Supreme Court has held that, if the government
diligently pursued prosecution, and had good faith reasons for delaying the trial,
the defendant’s Sixth Amendment claim generally will fail, unless he can show
actual prejudice to his defense. Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647, 656, 112
S. Ct. 2686, 2693 (1992).
The Government bears the burden of explaining pre-trial delay. United
States v. Ingram, 446 F.3d 1332, 1337 (11th Cir. 2006). Here, the Government
sought and obtained two continuances that resulted in the fifteen-month delay
between Marshall’s indictment and trial. Marshall’s attorney concurred with the
5
Government’s request for both continuances, which were based on the need to
complete discovery, obtain results of ongoing forensic evaluations, await
arraignment of Marshall’s codefendants in order to consolidate their trials, and
correct an error in the indictment date.
The district court did not plainly err by allowing the case to proceed to trial
following the 15-month post-indictment delay here, as the delay was a result of
good faith requests by the government, to which Marshall consented, and he did
not establish actual prejudice resulting from such delay. See Doggett, 505 U.S. at
656, 112 S. Ct. at 2693. The clear weight of the Supreme Court’s Barker factors
weigh in the Government’s favor.
II. Reasonableness of Sentence
We review the reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of discretion using a
two-step process. United States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179, 1190 (11th Cir. 2008).
First, we look at whether the district court committed any significant procedural
error and then at whether the sentence was substantively reasonable under the
totality of the circumstances. Id. A sentence may be procedurally unreasonable if
the district court improperly calculated the guideline range, treated the guidelines
as mandatory rather than advisory, failed to consider the appropriate § 3553(a)1
1
The factors in § 3553(a) that the sentencing court must consider are:
6
sentencing factors, selected a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failed to
explain adequately the chosen sentence. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, __,
128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). A sentence is substantively unreasonable “if it does
not achieve the purposes of sentencing stated in § 3553(a).” Pugh, 515 F.3d at
1191 (11th Cir. 2008) (quotation omitted). The review for substantive
reasonableness involves examining the totality of the circumstances, including the
extent of any variance from the Guidelines range. Gall, 552 U.S. at __, 128 S. Ct.
at 597. The party challenging the sentence bears the burden to show it was
unreasonable in light of the record and § 3553(a) factors. Thomas, 446 F.3d at
1351.
Marshall argues that his 360-month sentence was procedurally unreasonable
because the district court improperly treated the guidelines as mandatory and failed
to provide an adequate statement of reasons for his sentence. Marshall also argues
that his 360-month sentence was substantively unreasonable in light of his
(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics
of the defendant; (2) the need to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote
respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense; (3) the need
for deterrence; (4) the need to protect the public; (5) the need to provide the
defendant with needed educational or vocational training or medical care; (6) the
kinds of sentences available; (7) the Sentencing Guidelines range; (8) pertinent
policy statements of the Sentencing Commission; (9) the need to avoid unwanted
sentencing disparities; and (10) the need to provide restitution to victims.
United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 786 (11th Cir. 2005) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)).
7
character, youth, and lack of criminal history.
The only evidence Marshall provides that the district court failed to treat the
guidelines as advisory is the district court’s statement that it intended to sentence
Marshall within the guidelines range and requested that counsel focus his remarks
on the proper sentence within those guidelines. The court made this statement after
defense counsel presented arguments about Marshall’s youth and lack of criminal
history. Marshall does not contend that there were any additional mitigating
circumstances not presented to or considered by the court. Moreover, while the
district court must consider the § 3553(a) factors, it is not required to discuss each
individually. United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 786 (11th Cir. 2005). The
district court must merely acknowledge “that it has considered the defendant’s
arguments and the [§ 3553(a)] factors.” Id. Because the district court imposed a
within-guidelines sentence after acknowledging the advisory nature of the
guidelines, hearing defense counsel’s arguments in support of mitigation, and
stating that it had considered the § 3553(a) factors, the court imposed a
procedurally reasonable sentence.
Nor has Marshall met his burden to show substantive error “in light of both
[the] record and the factors in § 3553(a).” Id. at 788. The district court’s sentence
of 360 months was at the low end of the calculated statutory range of 360 months
8
to life imprisonment. Although “a sentence within the guidelines range is not per
se reasonable,” id. at 786, “there is a range of reasonable sentences from which the
district court may choose,” and “when the district court imposes a sentence within
the advisory Guidelines range, we ordinarily will expect that choice to be a
reasonable one.” Id. at 788.
In imposing the low-end sentence of the guidelines range, the court had
before it the PSI and had heard defense counsel’s mitigation arguments. The
weight given to any § 3553(a) factor is within the sound discretion of the district
court, and we will not substitute our judgment in weighing the relevant factors.
United States v. Amedeo, 487 F.3d 823, 832 (11th Cir. 2007). In light of the
severity of the offense, which involved the armed entry into an occupied home and
kidnapping of a one-year-old child, the court did not abuse its discretion in
imposing the low-end sentence of the guidelines range. Upon review, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
9