USA v. Jessie Gregg, No. 11-12144 (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[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ________________________ No. 11-12144 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT NOVEMBER 3, 2011 JOHN LEY CLERK D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cr-20887-CMA-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JESSIE JAMES GREGG, a.k.a. Jessie Gregg, llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (November 3, 2011) Before TJOFLAT, PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Jessie Gregg appeals his sentence of 151 months of imprisonment for bank robbery. 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (d). Gregg argues that his sentence is unreasonable. We affirm. Gregg s sentence is reasonable. Gregg argues that the district court erroneously impos[ed] . . . a prison term to promote [his] rehabilitation, see Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct. 2382, 2391 (2011), but the district court stated that it was not sure that the sentence should take into account the need for training or education, and it did not base[] [Gregg s] sentence on [that] impermissible factor[], United States v. Sarras, 575 F.3d 1191, 1219 (11th Cir. 2009). The district court reasonably determined that Gregg should receive a high sentence based on the serious nature of his armed bank robbery ; his distressing personal history consisting of a continuous, repeated, practically nonstop life of crime from a very young age of 12 ; his inability to live outside an institutional setting respectful of other rights to liberty, . . . security, . . . [and] to own property ; and the need to deter him from future similar crimes. The district court did not abuse its discretion. We AFFIRM Gregg s sentence. 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.