777 Fed.Appx. 371 (11th Cir. 2019), 18-13266, United States v. Cooper

Docket Nº:18-13266
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
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 371

777 Fed.Appx. 371 (11th Cir. 2019)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

Roosevelt Leon COOPER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 18-13266

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

June 12, 2019

Editorial Note:

DO NOT PUBLISH.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. 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 Houlihan, III, Michael Caruso, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s 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.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

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 reading

FREE SIGN UP