USA v. Michael Berry Cody, No. 07-14614 (11th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT September 19, 2008 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK No. 07-14614 D. C. Docket No. 03-00507 CR-RWS-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus MICHAEL BERRY CODY, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (September 19, 2008) Before DUBINA, HULL and FAY, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Appellant Michael Berry Cody ( Cody ) appeals his 123-month sentence stemming from his convictions of bank robbery, attempted bank robbery, and using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d), and 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), respectively. The only issue Cody presents on appeal is whether his 123-month sentence is reasonable. We review the district court s imposition of a sentence under the abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). After reviewing the record, reading the parties briefs, and having the benefit of oral argument, we conclude that Cody s resentence1 is both procedurally and substantively reasonable. The record demonstrates that the district court properly calculated Cody s sentencing range, acknowledged that it considered the guidelines and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and sufficiently explained its reasoning for the resentence imposed. 1 This is the second time we have considered an appeal of this case. In the first appeal, a panel of this court, in an unpublished decision, affirmed Cody s convictions, but vacated his sentences on Counts 1 and 2, in light of the Supreme Court s intervening decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), and remanded the case for resentencing. See United States v. Cody, 136 Fed. Appx. 297 (11th Cir. 2005). 2 AFFIRMED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
