[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-11137 NOVEMBER 17, 2011
Non-Argument Calendar JOHN LEY
CLERK
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:09-cr-00308-LSC-JEO-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CHRISTOPHER SHAWN INGRAM,
Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
________________________
(November 17, 2011)
Before EDMONDSON, BARKETT and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Christopher Shawn Ingram appeals his 180-month total sentence imposed
after he pleaded guilty to bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), and carrying a
firearm in relation to a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). No reversible error
has been shown; we affirm.
On appeal, Ingram argues that his above-guidelines sentence substantively
is unreasonable because the record did not justify the degree of the upward
variance. We evaluate the substantive reasonableness of a sentence -- whether
inside or outside the guidelines range -- under a deferential abuse-of-discretion
standard. Gall v. United States, 128 S.Ct. 586, 597 (2007). The party challenging
the sentence bears the burden of establishing that the sentence is unreasonable in
the light of both the record and the section 3553(a) factors.* United States v.
Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir. 2005).
When a district court decides to impose an upward variance, its
justifications for doing so must be “‘compelling’ enough ‘to support the degree of
the variance’ and complete enough to allow meaningful appellate review.” United
States v. Shaw, 560 F.3d 1230, 1238 (11th Cir. 2009). We will vacate a sentence
based on such an upward variance only “if we are left with the definite and firm
conviction that the district court committed a clear error of judgment in weighing
*
Under section 3553(a), a district court must consider the nature and circumstances of the
offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant, the need for the sentence to provide
adequate deterrence, respect for the law, and protection of the public, the defendant’s medical
and educational needs, the advisory guideline range, the Sentencing Commission’s policy
statements, and the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities and provide restitution. See
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1)-(7).
2
the § 3553(a) factors by arriving at a sentence that lies outside the range of
reasonable sentences dictated by the facts of the case.” Id.
We conclude that Ingram’s sentence is reasonable. Although the 180-month
sentence varied upward from the top of the advisory guidelines range by 74
months, it was still well below the statutory maximums that he faced for his
offenses -- 20 years’ imprisonment for bank robbery and life imprisonment for his
firearms offense. See United States v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319, 1324 (11th Cir.
2008) (comparing, as one indication of reasonableness, the sentence imposed and
the statutory maximum sentence).
In determining Ingram’s sentence, the court noted his extensive criminal
history, which included 5 burglary and robbery convictions, and that he had spent
all but 4 of his 26 adult years in prison. In particular, the court focused on
Ingram’s earlier bank robbery conviction, for which he was sentenced to 151
months’ imprisonment. Concluding that Ingram had not learned from this earlier
sentence -- and because he used a gun during the instant bank robbery -- the court
stated that an above-guidelines sentence was necessary to accomplish the goals set
forth in section 3553(a), including the need to provide adequate deterrence and to
protect the public from future crimes. The court’s justifications are compelling
enough to support its upward variance, and we are not convinced that it erred in
3
weighing the statutory factors.
We also reject Ingram’s contention that the district court failed to specify in
its written order its reasons for imposing a sentence outside the guidelines range,
as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2). Although the district court’s explanation
was brief, it stated the required reasons for the above-guidelines sentence in its
written judgment.
AFFIRMED.
4