Case ID: f-appx_465/html/0910-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arthur Carl HASPEL, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-14048
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    April 10, 2012.
    
      Wifredo A. Ferrer, Anne R. Schultz, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, Carmen M. Lineberger, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fort Pierce, FL, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
    Alvin E. Entin, Entin & Della Fera, PA, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before HULL, PRYOR and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Arthur Haspel appeals his sentence of imprisonment for 87 months following his plea of guilty to 9 counts of knowingly and intentionally distributing and dispensing oxycodone outside the scope of professional practice. 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Haspel argues that his sentence, at the high end of the guideline range, is unreasonable. Haspel argues that the district court failed to consider the statutory factors for sentencing, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), failed to credit expert testimony that Haspel is amenable to treatment for mental illness, and failed to account for Haspel’s undischarged sentence for Medicare fraud. Haspel also argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. We affirm.

We review the reasonableness of a sentence under a deferential standard of review for abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 128 S.Ct. 586, 591, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). We review findings of fact for clear error. United States v. Rothenberg, 610 F.3d 621, 624 (11th Cir.2010). When “a term of imprisonment is imposed on a defendant who is already subject to an undischarged term of imprisonment,” the district court has the discretion to decide whether the terms will run concurrently or consecutively. 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a), (b).

Haspel’s sentence is reasonable. The district court stated that it had considered the relevant sentencing factors, and the district court did not rely on any impermissible factor. Haspel’s sentence at the high end of the guideline range is also substantively reasonable.

AFFIRMED.