[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
January 23, 2007
No. 06-12892 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 04-00276-CR-1-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DERRICK OWENS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
_________________________
(January 23, 2007)
Before ANDERSON, CARNES and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Derrick Owens was convicted by a jury of bank robbery, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 2113(a). After we vacated Owens’ first sentence and remanded the case
back to the district court in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Booker,1
United States v. Owens, No. 05-10401 (11th Cir. Jan. 24, 2006), the district court
sentenced him to 225 months in prison. Owens’ sole contention in this appeal is
that his 225-month prison sentence is unreasonable.
“In reviewing the ultimate sentence imposed by the district court for
reasonableness, we consider the final sentence, in its entirety, in light of the
[section] 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Martin, 455 F.3d 1227, 1237 (11th Cir.
2006). Our reasonableness review is deferential, and the burden of proving that the
sentence is unreasonable in light of the record and the section 3553(a) factors rests
on the party challenging the sentence. United States v. Wilks, 464 F.3d 1240, 1245
(11th Cir.), cert. denied, 2006 WL 3064949 (U.S. Nov. 27, 2006).
Owens contends that his sentence was unreasonable because his robbery
attempt was “inept,” his prior convictions were not as serious as those for most
career offenders, he was suffering from depression when he robbed the bank, and
his sentence was disproportionate to what he would have received in state court for
a similar crime. To the extent this mitigation evidence was relevant to the section
1
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005).
2
3553(a) factors, the district court stated that it considered the evidence in
determining Owens’ sentence. However, the court also said it must consider
Owens’ “bad” sixteen-year criminal history (multiple convictions for car theft,
armed robbery, and possession of crack cocaine with the intent to distribute), 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(C) (the court must consider “the need for the sentence
imposed . . . to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant”), his death
threat to the teller during the bank robbery, his high-speed car chase in a stolen
vehicle after he was found by the police, his perjured testimony that two
kidnappers forced him to rob the bank, id. § 3553(a)(1) (the court must consider
“the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of
the defendant” and “the need for the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of
the offense [and] to promote respect for the law”), and the advisory guideline range
(which called for a prison sentence of between 210 and 240 months), id. §
3553(a)(4) (the court must consider “the sentencing range established . . . by the
Sentencing Commission”).
Owens has not shown that, given the seriousness of his crime, the breadth of
his criminal history, and the advisory guideline range, his 225-month prison
sentence was unreasonable. We therefore AFFIRM the district court’s judgment of
sentence.
3