777 Fed.Appx. 371 (11th Cir. 2019), 18-13266, United States v. Cooper
|Citation:||777 Fed.Appx. 371|
|Opinion Judge:||PER CURIAM:|
|Party Name:||UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roosevelt Leon COOPER, Defendant-Appellant.|
|Attorney:||Phillip Drew DiRosa, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fort Lauderdale, FL, Madeleine R. Shirley, Emily M. Smachetti, U.S. Attorney Service - Southern District of Florida, Jason Wu, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney Service - SFL, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee Andrew L. Adler, Raymond D’Arsey ...|
|Judge Panel:||Before MARTIN, NEWSOM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||June 12, 2019|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit|
DO NOT PUBLISH. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1. See also U.S.Ct. of App. 11th Cir. Rule 36-2.)
Phillip Drew DiRosa, U.S. Attorneys Office, Fort Lauderdale, FL, Madeleine R. Shirley, Emily M. Smachetti, U.S. Attorney Service - Southern District of Florida, Jason Wu, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney Service - SFL, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Andrew L. Adler, Raymond DArsey Houlihan, III, Michael Caruso, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defenders Office, Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, D.C. Docket No. 0:18-cr-60074-FAM-1
Before MARTIN, NEWSOM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
Roosevelt Cooper appeals his 60-month, above-guideline sentence for possessing a firearm as a convicted felon. Cooper argues that the district court violated his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination by attempting to compel him to testify against his will about the firearm involved in the instant offense and by drawing an adverse factual inference from his silence. Cooper specifically contends that the district court drew the negative inference that he may have possessed the firearm beyond the time required to pawn it and penalized him for his silence by imposing an upward variance.
Although we ordinarily review constitutional sentencing issues de novo, when a defendant fails to raise such an objection before the district court at sentencing, we review only for plain error. United States v. Harris, 741 F.3d 1245, 1248 (11th Cir. 2014). To preserve an objection, a defendant must raise that point in such clear and simple language that the trial court may not misunderstand it. United States v. Ramirez-Flores, 743 F.3d 816, 821 (11th Cir. 2014). Under that standard, we will not correct the error unless the defendant shows (1) error, (2) that is plain, (3) that...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP