FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT FEB RUARY 1, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 17226 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 2 - 2 0 9 3 8 - C R - P AS U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s J A M A L B R O W N , a .k .a . P o o k a lo tta , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( F e b r u ar y 1, 2007) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B IR C H an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

J a m a l B r ow n appe a l s hi s 260- m onth s e nt e nc e , i m pos e d upon r e - s e nt e nc i ng a f t e rr e m a nd, f

orc ons pi r a c y t o di s tr i but e c oc a i ne a nd c oc a i ne ba s e , i n vi ol a t i on of 2 1 U .S .C . § § 8 4 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( ii) a n d ( iii) , a n d 8 4 6 . O n ap p e a l, B r o w n a r g u e s th a t h is 260- m onth s e nt e nc e i s gr e a t e rtha n ne c e s s a ry t o a c hi e ve the purpos e s of s e nt e nc i ng s e tf orth i n 18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) ( 2) . S pe c i f i c a l l y , B r ow n a r gue s tha tthe ca t as troph i c nature of hi s m edi ca l cond i t i on , nam el y, hi s quadri pl egi a, ou tw ei gh ed the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors. In addi t i on , B row n m ai nt ai ns thatthere w as an un w arrant ed di s pa r i ty be tw e e n hi s s e nt e nc e a nd the s e nt e nc e of hi s c o- c ons pi r a t orw ho w a s the le a d e ro f th e d ru g tr a f

f ic k in g o r g a n iz a tio n .

I. W e ha ve he l d tha t“ [ i ] n r e vi e w i ng the ul t i m a t e s e nt e nc e i m pos e d by the d is tr ic t c o u rt f

o rr e a s o n ab le n e s s , w e c o n s id e rth e f in a l s e n te n c e , in its e n tir e ty , in lig h t o f th e § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f

a c to r s .” U n ite d S ta te s v . M a rtin , 4 5 5 F .3 d 1 2 2 7 , 1 2 3 7 ( 1 1 th C i r. 20 06 ) ( brac ket s i n o ri gi nal ) ( ci t at i on om i tt ed). In det erm i ni ng w hether a s e n te n c e is r e a s o n ab le , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt s h o u ld b e g u id e d b y th e § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f a c to r s . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ooke r , 543 U . S . 220, 261, 125 S . C t . 738, 765- 66, 160 L . E d. 2d 6 2 1 ( 2 0 0 5 ) ; U n ite d S ta te s v . W in in g e a r , 4 2 2 F .3 d 1 2 4 1 , 1 2 4 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . S ect i o n 3 5 5 3 (a) p ro v i d es th atd i stri ctco u rt s m u stco n si d er, am o n g o th er th i n g s: (1) the appl i cabl e gui del i ne rang e; (2) the nature and ci rc um st ance s of the offens e;3

(3) the hi st ory and char ac t er i st i cs of the defendant ; (4) the need for the se nt ence i m p o s e d t o r e f

l e c tth e s e r i o u s n e s s o f

th e o f f e n s e , t o p r o m o t e r e s p e c tf o rth e l a w, a n d to p r o v id e ju s t p u n is h m e n t f o rth e o f f e n s e ; ( 5 ) th e n e e d f

o ra d e q u a te det erre nce; (6) prot ec t i on of the pu bl i c; and (7) the need t o avo i d u nw arrant ed s e n te n c in g d is p a r itie s . 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) ( 1 ) - ( 6 ) . A lth o u g h th e d is tr ic t c o u rt m u s t b e g u id e d b y th e s e f a c to r s , w e h a v e h e ld tha t“ nothi ng i n B ooke rore l s e w he r e r e qui r e s the di s tr i c tc ourtt o s t a t e on the reco rd th ati th as ex p l i ci t l y co n si d ered each o f th e § 3 5 5 3 (a) factors o r t o d i scu ss e a c h o f th e § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f

a c to r s .” U n ite d S ta te s v . S c o tt, 4 2 6 F .3 d 1 3 2 4 , 1 3 2 9 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2005) . “ [ A ] n a c know l e dgm e ntby the di s tr i c tc ourttha ti tha s c ons i de r e d the defe nd ant ’ s argum ent s and the fa ct ors i n sec t i on 35 53 (a ) i s s uffi ci entun der B ooke r . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T a l l e y , 431 F . 3d 784, 786 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . “ T he w ei gh tt o b e a cc orded any gi ven § 35 53 (a ) f ac t or i s am a tt e rc om m i tt e d t o the s ound di s c r e t i on of

the di s tr i c tc ourt . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. W i l l i a m s , 456 F . 3d 1353, 1 3 6 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . W e w ill n o t s u b s titu te th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s ju d g m e n t in w e i ghi ng the f

a c t or s unl e s s “ the di s tr i c tc ourtc om m i tt e d ac l e a re rr orof j udgm e nt i n w ei g h i n g th e § 3 5 5 3 (a) factors by a rr i vi ng a tas e nt e nc e tha tl i e s out s i de the r a nge of r e a s onabl e s e nt e nc e s di c t a t e d by the f a c t s of the c a s e . ” I d. T he bur de n of e s t abl i s hi ng tha tthe s e nt e nc e i s unr e a s onabl e i n l i ghtof the r e c or d a nd the4

§ 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors l i es w i th the party c hal l engi ng the se nt ence . T al l ey , 43 1 F . 3d at 7 8 8 . II. T h e r e c o r d b e f

o r e u s a m p lyd e m o n s tr a te s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt a d e q u a te ly a n d p r o p e r lyc o n s id e r e d th e § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) s e n te n c in g f a c to r s a n d th a t th e s e n te n c e it i m po se d w as suff

i ci ent , bu tno tgrea t erthan n ec es sary , t o com pl y w i th the st atut ory pu rposes of se nt enci ng . T he 26 0-m on th sent ence w as re as on abl e f or se vera l re as on s. F i rs t , the courtexpl i ci t l y c on si dere d and eval uat ed m any of the § 3 55 3(a) f a c t or s , i nc l udi ng ( 1) B r ow n’ s hi s t ory a nd c ha r a c t e r i s t i c s ; ( 2) the na tur e a nd c i r c um s t a nc e s of

the of f e ns e ; ( 3) the ne e d f

orthe s e nt e nc e i m pos e d t o r e f l e c tthe seri o u sn ess o f th e o ffen se, t o p ro m o t e resp ectfo r th e l aw , an d t o p ro v i d e j u st p u n is h m e n t f

o rth e o f f e n s e ; ( 4 ) th e n e e d f

o rth e s e n te n c e to a f

f o r d a d e q u a te det erre nce of cr i m i nal cond uct ; and (5) the need t o p rot ec tthe pu bl i c f rom future c r im e s o f th e d e f e n d a n t. S e c o n d , a lth o u g h B r o w n s u g g e s ts th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t p r o p e r ly w e ig h th e s e n te n c in g f

a c to r s , w e h a v e n o tr o u b le c o n c lu d in g th a t the di stri ctcourt di d notc om m i tac l e a re rr orof j udgm e nti n appl y i ng the f a c t or s . W e not e tha tthe c ourtgr a nt e d as ubs t a nt i a l dow nw a r d va r i a nc e a f t e rw e i ghi ng the m i t i ga t i ng f a c t or s , i nc l udi ng the s e r i ous ne s s of B r ow n’ s m e di c a l c ondi t i on, a ga i ns tthe5

aggravat i ng fa ct ors, such as the se ri ou snes s of B row n’ s off ense , hi s c ri m i nal r e c o r d , a n d h is c o m m is s io n o f a n o th e rd ru g c r im e a f

te rh e w a s in

ju r e d . F i nal l y, B row n’ s a ss ert i on thathi s s ent ence cr ea t ed an un w arrant ed s e nt e nc i ng di s pa r i ty i s w i thoutm e r i tbe c aus e the di s tr i c tc ourte xpl a i ne d tha tthe di s pa r i ty be tw e e n B r ow n’ s a nd hi s c o- c ons pi r a t or ’ s s e nt e nc e s r e s ul t e d f r om B r o w n ’s m o r e s e r io u s p r io rc r im in a l h is to ry . M o r e o v e r , B r o w n ’s 2 6 0 - m o n th se nt ence w as si gn i fi cant l y l es s than the st atut ory m axi m um se nt ence of l i fe im p r is o n m e n t. I I I . F o rth e r e a s o n s s ta te d ab o v e , w e c o n c lu d e th a t B r o w n h a s f a ile d to c a rry h is b u r d e n o f

s h o w in g th a t h is s e n te n c e w a s u n r e a s o n ab le . H is 2 6 0 - m o n th s e n te n c e is the r e f or e a f f i rm e d. A F F I R M E D .