[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FEB 22, 2007
No. 06-14007 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 05-00185-CR-1-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL RENE GARRETT,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
_________________________
(February 22, 2007)
Before DUBINA, CARNES and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Garrett appeals, as unreasonable, his 151-month sentence for
kidnapping, 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1), and interstate transportation of a stolen
vehicle, id. § 2312, imposed consecutively to a state sentence for a previous
offense. We affirm.
Garrett’s advisory Sentencing Guidelines range was 151 to 188 months. The
district court imposed a sentence of 151 months of imprisonment for the
kidnapping charge and the statutory maximum of 120 months for the stolen-vehicle
charge. The sentences run concurrently with each other but consecutively with the
Michigan sentence Garrett is serving for another kidnapping.
In reviewing a sentence, we review the application of the Sentencing
Guidelines by the district court de novo. United States v. Bradford, 277 F.3d 1311,
1316 (11th Cir. 2002). “Multiple terms of imprisonment imposed at different
times run consecutively unless the court orders that the terms are to run
concurrently.” 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a). The court must consider the statutory factors,
id. § 3553(a), to determine whether to order the sentences to run concurrently or
consecutively. Id. § 3584(b).
Garrett argues that the decision to impose his federal sentence consecutively
was unreasonable because the consecutive sentence is longer than necessary to
protect the public and deter criminal behavior. We disagree for two reasons. First,
the district court considered the section 3553(a) factors when it declined to run the
2
sentence concurrently, including the seriousness of the offense; the need for just
punishment, deterrence, and protecting the public from future crimes; the provision
of medical care and correctional treatment; and the advisory Guidelines range.
Because Garrett appeared to be stable only when in confinement and forced to take
his medication, the court concluded that Garrett’s mental illness also weighed in
favor of imposing a consecutive sentence. Second, the district court imposed a
reasonable punishment for these offenses. See U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(c) (“[T]he
sentence for the instant offense may be imposed to run concurrently, partially
concurrently, or consecutively to the prior undischarged term of imprisonment to
achieve a reasonable punishment for the instant offense.”) (policy statement). It
was reasonable for the district court to conclude that it would be unfair to the
public and the victim to impose no additional punishment for Garrett’s second
kidnapping offense.
Garrett’s sentence is
AFFIRMED.
3