USA v. Warrick Castille, No. 11-31085 (5th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 11-31085 Document: 00511908882 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/03/2012 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 11-31085 Summary Calendar July 3, 2012 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. WARRICK DWAYNE CASTILLE, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:11-CR-61-1 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Warrick Dwayne Castille appeals his 235-month prison term for bank robbery. He was sentenced to the guidelines maximum under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 as a career offender. According to Castille, he should have received a two-level downward variance because he used an airsoft pistol instead of a firearm. He cites the robbery guideline in U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(2), which provides for a sixlevel enhancement for the use of a firearm and only a four-level enhancement for the use of a dangerous weapon, defined as an instrument capable of inflicting * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Case: 11-31085 Document: 00511908882 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/03/2012 No. 11-31085 death or serious bodily injury or an object that closely resembles such an instrument. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1, comment. (n.1(D)). The district court expressly considered Castille s argument and determined that the maximum guidelines sentence was appropriate. The court explicitly found that other aspects of the offense were more important than the use of an airsoft gun, including the danger created by the mere perception that the gun was real and the trauma to those in the bank. Castille does not show that the district court erred in weighing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Hernandez, 633 F.3d 370, 375-76 (5th Cir.), cert. denied., 131 S. Ct. 3006 (2011). He fails to show that his guidelines sentence did not account for a factor that should have received significant weight, and he fails to overcome the presumption that his guidelines sentence was reasonable. See United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). The judgment of the district court 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.
