USA v. Hensel Joseph, No. 14-15440 (11th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 14-15440 Date Filed: 08/10/2015 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 14-15440 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cr-20380-BB-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus HENSEL JOSEPH, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (August 10, 2015) Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JILL PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 14-15440 Date Filed: 08/10/2015 Page: 2 of 3 Hensel Joseph appeals his 46-month sentence, imposed after pleading guilty to bank robbery and attempted bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). Joseph argues the district court erred because (1) the two-level enhancement imposed under U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(1) for taking the property of a financial institution constituted impermissible double counting, and (2) his sentence was substantively unreasonable. After review,1 we affirm. As Joseph acknowledges in his initial brief, our precedent forecloses Joseph’s double-counting argument. See United States v. Dudley, 102 F.3d 1184, 1186–87 (11th Cir. 1997) (holding a district court does not err in a bank-robbery case when it imposes a two-level enhancement under § 2B3.1(b)(1) for taking the property of a financial institution.) The district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Joseph to 46 months of imprisonment. The district court imposed the sentence at the minimum of Joseph’s guidelines range. See United States v. Asante, 782 F.3d 639, 648 (11th Cir. 2015) (“[W]e ordinarily expect a sentence within the Guidelines ranges to be reasonable.”) (quotation omitted). The district court considered the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). While acknowledging his unique immigration status and medical 1 We review de novo claims of double counting under the Sentencing Guidelines. United States v. Webb, 665 F.3d 1380, 1382 (11th Cir. 2012). We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). 2 Case: 14-15440 Date Filed: 08/10/2015 Page: 3 of 3 history, the district court noted those reasons did not justify his commission of six bank robberies. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Joseph’s sentence. 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.
