[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
NOV 28, 2006
No. 06-12530 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 05-00334-CR-WTM-4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
BRAHEEN TIMOTHY EARL WHITFIELD,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
_________________________
(November 28, 2006)
Before BLACK, MARCUS and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Braheen Timothy Earl Whitfield appeals his sentence of 262 months of
imprisonment imposed after Whitfield pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession
of a firearm. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Whitfield argues that the district court violated
the Sixth Amendment when it made factual findings in connection with Whitfield’s
sentence and imposed an unreasonable sentence. We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
In October 2005, Whitfield, Kareem Abdul Salaam, and a minor female,
were apprehended after a high-speed chase during which they traveled in a stolen
2005 Toyota Camry. Officers found in the Camry the tag from another stolen
vehicle and two firearms. Whitfield and Salaam, both convicted felons, were
indicted by a federal grand jury for possession of a stolen motor vehicle, 18 U.S.C.
§ 2313, and being a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Whitfield
pleaded guilty to the firearm charge, and the government dismissed the stolen
motor vehicle charge.
The probation officer set Whitfield’s base offense level at 24 because
Whitfield was in possession of a firearm after having at least two violent or drug
related felony convictions. U.S.S.G. § 2k2.1(a)(2). The probation officer added
four levels under section 2k2.1(b)(5) because Whitfield possessed the firearm in
connection with a carjacking. The probation officer then added a two-level
increase because Whitfield attempted to escape while in custody and a two-level
enhancement because of the high-speed chase before Salaam and Whitfield were
2
apprehended for a total offense level of 32. Because Whitfield was an armed
career criminal and that offense level exceeded the calculated offense level, the
probation officer set Whitfield’s offense level at 34. With a criminal history
category of VI, the resulting guideline range was 262 to 327 months of
imprisonment. The probation officer denied Whitfield a reduction for acceptance
of responsibility because Whitfield denied involvement in the carjacking and
because of Whitfield’s escape attempt.
Whitfield filed objections to the report of the probation officer. Specifically,
Whitfield objected to the denial of a reduction for acceptance of responsibility, the
four-level enhancement for possession of a firearm in connection with the
carjacking, and the two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice.
After considering Whitfield’s objections, the district court adopted the
guideline calculations of the probation officer except for the enhancement for the
high-speed chase because Whitfield was not driving the vehicle. The district court
expressly adopted the findings of the probation officer with respect to Whitfield’s
objections. The district court sentenced Whitfield to 262 months of imprisonment.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review the application of the sentencing guidelines by the district court
de novo and review findings of fact for clear error. United States v. Crawford, 407
3
F.3d 1174, 1177-78 (11th Cir. 2005). We review sentences for reasonableness.
United States v. Williams, 435 F.3d 1350, 1353 (11th Cir. 2006). Review for
reasonableness is deferential, United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir.
2005), 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.
III. DISCUSSION
Whitfield makes two main arguments on appeal. First, Whitfield argues that
the district court violated his rights under the Sixth Amendment when it enhanced
his sentence using judicially found facts. Second, Whitfield argues that his
sentence is unreasonable. Both arguments fail.
Whitfield’s first argument is based on a misapprehension of law. After
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), a district court does
not err when it makes findings of fact at sentencing. United States v. Chau, 426
F.3d 1318, 1324 (11th Cir. 2005). Whitfield’s Sixth Amendment rights were not
violated when the district court made enhancements to his sentence or denied him a
reduction based on factual findings made at sentencing.
Whitfield’s second argument is belied by the record. Whitfield argues that
the district court failed to rule on his objections to the presentence investigation
report, the sentence does not accurately reflect the gravity of his crime, and the
4
district court failed to take into account the mitigating evidence of Whitfield’s
bipolar disorder and drug use. The transcript of the sentencing proceeding reflects
that the district court ruled on Whitfield’s objections when it expressly adopted the
response of the probation officer to those objections; the district court stated that it
had considered the mitigating evidence, which was presented at sentencing; and the
district court stated several reasons why the sentence, which was at the low-end of
the guideline range, was appropriate. In the light of this record, Whitfield has
failed to establish that his sentence is unreasonable.
IV. CONCLUSION
Whitfield’s sentence is
AFFIRMED.
5