[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
NOVEMBER 3, 2011
No. 11-12144
Non-Argument Calendar JOHN LEY
CLERK
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cr-20887-CMA-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JESSIE JAMES GREGG,
a.k.a. Jessie Gregg,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(November 3, 2011)
Before TJOFLAT, PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Jessie Gregg appeals his sentence of 151 months of imprisonment for bank
robbery. 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (d). Gregg argues that his sentence is unreasonable.
We affirm.
Gregg’s sentence is reasonable. Gregg argues that the district court
erroneously “impos[ed] . . . a prison term to promote [his] rehabilitation,” see
Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct. 2382, 2391 (2011), but the district
court stated that it was “not sure that the sentence should take into account the
need for training or education,” and it did not “base[] [Gregg’s] sentence on [that]
impermissible factor[],” United States v. Sarras, 575 F.3d 1191, 1219 (11th Cir.
2009). The district court reasonably determined that Gregg should receive a “high
sentence” based on the “serious” nature of his “armed bank robbery”; his
“distressing personal history consisting of a continuous, repeated, practically
nonstop life of crime from a very young age of 12”; his inability to “live outside
an institutional setting respectful of other rights to liberty, . . . security, . . . [and] to
own property”; and the need to deter him from future similar crimes. The district
court did not abuse its discretion.
We AFFIRM Gregg’s sentence.
2