USA v. Mark Carron, No. 10-15021 (11th Cir. 2011)
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[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 10-15021 JUNE 14, 2011 Non-Argument Calendar JOHN LEY ________________________ CLERK D.C. Docket No. 8:10-cr-00295-RAL-TBM-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus MARK STEPHEN CARRON, Defendant-Appellant, __________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _________________________ (June 14, 2011) Before PRYOR, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Mark Stephen Carron appeals his sentence of 96 months of imprisonment for possessing a firearm as a convicted felon. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Carron argues that his sentence is unreasonable. We affirm. Carron s sentence is reasonable. Carron was convicted previously of possessing a firearm as a convicted felon and, as the district court found, received a tremendous break by being sentenced to 6 months of imprisonment and 24 months of supervised release. Four months after he completed that sentence, police officers found Carron in possession of burglary tools, tactical vests and equipment, and some very serious weapons, including four semi-automatic handguns, a pipe bomb, and seven improvised explosive devices. The district court reasonably determined that the guideline range of 70 to 87 months of imprisonment failed to address adequately Carron s decision to do the same thing on a more egregious scale, and that an upward variance was necessary to address the seriousness of Carron s offense, his disregard for the law, and his recidivism, and to provide a just punishment and protect the public. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The district court did not abuse its discretion by sentencing Carron to a term of imprisonment nine months above the top of the guideline range and well below the statutory maximum term of 120 months of imprisonment. Carron s sentence is AFFIRMED. 2
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.
