On April 26, 2017, Sims was indicted on one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924. Sims pleaded guilty to the single count indictment on January 29, 2019. Thereafter, the court set the matter for sentencing.
The Presentence Report ("PSR") calculated Sims' recommended imprisonment range as seventy to eighty-seven months under the Guidelines, based on a total offense level of twenty-three and a criminal history of category IV. It did not note any factors warranting a departure. In his objections to the PSR, Sims lodged a number of factual objections and requested a variance, departure, and/or adjustment below the advisory Guidelines range based on his inability to obtain a concurrent sentence with his state case and a second federal case as well as his mental health and medical conditions. After taking up and resolving Sims' factual objections, none of which changed the Guidelines range provided in his PSR, the district court accepted the recommendations of probation as articulated in the PSR. More specifically, the court found that Sims' base offense level was twenty-six, given that the offense involved a semiautomatic firearm capable of accepting a large capacity magazine or a firearm that is described in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a) and that Sims committed a part of the instant offense subsequent to two felony convictions of a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense. U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(1). At the government's request, a three-level reduction was applied for Sims' acceptance of responsibility, giving him a total offense level of twenty-three. With a criminal history computation of nine points, establishing a criminal history category of IV, Sims' was subject to a Guidelines range of seventy to eighty-seven months, followed by one to three years of supervised release. Ultimately, the district court imposed a within-Guidelines sentence of eighty months of imprisonment, to run concurrent with his judgment in another federal case, followed by three years of supervised release.
At the start of Sims' sentencing hearing, the district court acknowledged that it reviewed letters submitted prior to the hearing from Sims' family, including letters from two daughters andone son.1 The court also recognized that statements within those letters could be reviewed during sentencing.
During sentencing, the district court considered Sims' history and characteristics, stating as follows:
[T]he Court feels compelled to comment on [] the notion of the Defendant having a family and that he should go back to his family. And this is all very understandable. I think Mr. Sims has family members that, from the letters, care about their father and husband. They want him to come home. . . .
I think I am compelled to say, [] that for me, although I always like to hear background about the client and I feel for the family members that are affected, it's difficult for me to grant leniency based on the wishes of the family or the desire to return to the family for several reasons. One is that they do not appear to me to be appropriately encompassed within the 3553(a) factors.
Another thing is that the Court is loath to sort of discriminate against folks based on family status. And what I mean by that is, if I had very similar situations where one person can, you know, appeal to the fact that they have a family that needs them and the other person doesn't, the Court is concerned about being unfair to the person that does not have those family members. And that is a real issue for the Court especially when, let's face it, the one who doesn't have a family, he may be less culpable in the sense that he didn't put his family at risk of losing their valued family member by their behavior.
. . . And the Court is always happy to hear from family members and understands their stories[. Still,] the Court, in its view, would not be carrying out its responsibilities by affording that weight, even though it wants to be compassionate to family members.
But the Court realizes that incarceration is always hard on family members; that's just part of the process. And I don't think this Court is speaking out of school when it says that these are the kinds of things that folks need to think about before they intentionally undertake the conduct that they know full well is going to risk getting them in trouble and taking them away from their family.
Having said that, however, the Court does take note of the fact that the Defendant, although from what I can tell from the presentence report and the criminal history, has not always been prioritizing his family, the Court notes from the letters that he does have incentive to do so now. From the documents filed today from [Sims' counsel], it appears that he is taking a new stance and trying to do something affirmative to turn his life around. And that's very appropriate.
Sent. Hr'g Tr., R. 41, at PageID #148-50.
Sims' counsel then addressed the court, stating that they viewed the appropriateness of considering Sims' family circumstances slightly different than the court—that, although each defendant's family circumstances may be different, it is properly considered given the individualized assessment required in imposing a sentence under the Guidelines. The court responded as follows:
Yeah. Well, I understand, [your point], and I think you might get some courts to agree with you. I think, you know, for the reasons I said, I see it differently. I think I'm authorized to.
But I will say this about this, and I am concerned about a Defendant who maybe—and there are some people—I know some—pretty much all alone in the world and they can't point to that. And I just don't want them to be disadvantaged.
But having said that, I will tell you where I have thought about Mr. Sims' family and am taking into account, and it's on the issue of the need for incapacitation, meaning how likely is he motivated despite, I think, a history of unfortunate sort of inability to comply with the law? How motivated is he to turn his life around? And I reviewed your documents, and I like the statements that were made in what I was reading.
I think—I have accounted for the fact that I think that it is likely that having those family members that are pulling for him, that want him there, will be a substantial motivating force. I just hope it's enough. But was I thinking about that when I'm thinking, you know what? After—you know, after—in addition to what time he's serving in Eastern Tennessee, how much time does he really need to serve extra? I did take that into account. So I appreciate that.
Id. at PageID #157-58.
After this discussion and others concerning the appropriate considerations in sentencing Sims under the Guidelines, the court pronounced a sentence of eighty months and adjourned the proceedings. Thereafter, the court resumed its proceedings to afford Sims an opportunity to address the court prior to judgment being entered and inform the parties of the Federal Bureau of Prisons' decision regarding Sims' sentencing credit, about which the parties previously expressed concern. When Sims addressed the court, he spoke, in part, of his family circumstances—namely, the effect of his behavior on his wife and kids as well as how he wanted to lead a better life and be a better example to his family.
The district court acknowledged Sims' statements and further explained how it considered Sims' family circumstances in sentencing him:
And, Mr. Sims, I want to say a few things that go into my thinking about the sentence. You know, one thing I want you to know is that before going back over the sentence with you, I do want you to know that I heard what you said. And I'm also glad that you had an opportunity to do what I think you were doing, which was to address your family. I would say that your remarks were consistent with what I was picking up on this morning prior to sentencing from reading what you had written about your interest in helping prevent recidivism and something I would have guessed you were feeling about your children, because I read your children's letters and your wife's letters.
My sense was that, you know, facing—even with your—even having a criminal history as you did, you hadn't been facing this kind of jail sentence that you are looking at now. And the Court's view was that this whole experience, including the desire to be back with your family, would motivate you to make those positive changes in your life and that, in the Court's view, those were things that would help the Court conclude that we didn't need two full sentences, one of 78 months and one of 80 months right on top of each other. We didn't need that, and the Court did take that into account.
And so the Court certainly has heard what you're saying. It doesn't change the Court's analysis. I think it does highlight some things that the Court was thinking. And, you know, I—when I look at these cases, I'm always hopeful that folks that have been in trouble are committed to making positive change and that they are motivated to make a positive change. And I was
...
