[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 18-14072

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 4:17-cr-00263-WTM-GRS-6

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

TYRONE WILLIAMS, 

a.k.a. TY,

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Georgia

________________________

(July 23, 2019)

Before MARCUS, WILSON, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 18-14072 Date Filed: 07/23/2019 Page: 1 of 9 
2

Tyrone Williams appeals his 160-month sentence for distribution of heroin.

Williams argues that his mid-range sentence was procedurally unreasonable 

because the district court improperly calculated the quantity of drugs he 

distributed. He also argues that his sentence was substantively unreasonable 

because the district court placed too much weight on his criminal history, resulting 

in unwarranted disparity between his sentence and his codefendants’ sentences. 

We disagree and affirm. 

I.

A grand jury indicted Williams and five others on various drug crimes.

1

 

Williams pleaded guilty to distribution of heroin pursuant to a written plea 

agreement. 

According to the presentence investigation report (PSI), Williams sold 3.003 

grams of crack cocaine to a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives 

(ATF) confidential informant. In a separate sale, Williams sold the informant 1.06 

grams of heroin. When ATF agents arrested Williams, he had 0.80 grams of 

marijuana. After converting the total quantity of all three drugs to the marijuana 

equivalent, Williams was responsible for the equivalent of 11.77 kilograms of 

marijuana. 

 1 The indictment charged Williams with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and 

conspiracy to distribute several controlled substances under 21 U.S.C. § 846 and 18 U.S.C § 2: 

distribution of crack cocaine and heroin under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); and possession of 

marijuana under 21 U.S.C. § 844(a).

Case: 18-14072 Date Filed: 07/23/2019 Page: 2 of 9 
3

The probation officer applied a base offense level of 14 based on the drug 

quantity—11.77 kilograms of marijuana. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(13). Because 

Williams had at least two prior felony convictions for controlled substance 

offenses, he was categorized as a “career offender,” which increased his base 

offense level to 32. Williams received a three-level reduction under § 3E1.1(a) and 

(b) for acceptance of responsibility, resulting in a total offense level of 29. 

Williams was a career offender because he had 18 prior felony convictions, 9 of 

which involved possession or distribution of controlled substances. Even without 

career offender status, Williams had 23 criminal history points, including 2 points 

for committing the instant offense while on probation. Both Williams’ criminal 

history and his status as a career offender thus independently established a criminal 

history category of VI. 

Based on a total offense level of 29 and a criminal history category of VI, 

the guideline range was 151 to 188 months’ imprisonment. For an individual with 

two or more prior felony-controlled-substance convictions, the statutory maximum 

sentence is 20 years’ imprisonment. 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). 

Williams objected to the PSI’s calculation of his criminal history points, 

arguing that convictions from three of his arrests stemmed from a single case and 

should not be considered because they occurred over fifteen years ago. The district 

court overruled his objections and adopted the PSI’s factual statements and 

Case: 18-14072 Date Filed: 07/23/2019 Page: 3 of 9 
4

advisory sentencing guideline calculations. The court acknowledged that 

Williams’ total offense level was 29 with a criminal history category of VI, 

resulting in a guideline range of 151 to 188 months’ imprisonment. The court 

sentenced Williams to 160 months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised 

release. In doing so, the court noted that it considered the statements of the parties, 

the PSI, and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. The court specifically discussed two 

of the § 3553(a) factors: (1) that Williams was on probation at the time of the 

offense and (2) Williams’ criminal history, which spanned 26 years and resulted in 

18 adult criminal convictions. The court also noted that this was Williams’ tenth 

conviction involving controlled substances and that some of his earlier convictions 

involved both controlled substances and firearms. Williams did not object to the 

sentence, but now appeals. 

II. 

Williams first argues that his sentence was procedurally unreasonable 

because the district court inflated his guideline score by improperly calculating the

quantity of heroin he distributed. According to Williams, his sentence should only 

account for 3.68 kilograms of marijuana because he only sold 3.68 grams of 

heroin.2

 He also contends that the district court improperly included alternate 

quantities of THC oil, which inflated the total drug quantity to 319.932 kilograms 

 2 According to the PSI, Williams sold 1.06 grams of heroin. 

Case: 18-14072 Date Filed: 07/23/2019 Page: 4 of 9 
5

of marijuana.3 Williams argues that his base offense level should have therefore 

been 10, not 24.4

 

A sentence is procedurally unreasonable if the district court miscalculated 

the guideline range or selected the sentence using “clearly erroneous facts.” 

United States v. Cubero, 754 F.3d 888, 892 (11th Cir. 2014). A defendant’s 

“failure to object to allegations of fact in a PSI admits those facts for sentencing 

purposes.” United States v. Wade, 458 F.3d 1273, 1277 (11th Cir. 2006) (citing 

United States v. Shelton, 400 F.3d 1325, 1330 (11th Cir. 2005)). We review a 

sentence for harmless error when the district court would impose the same 

sentence regardless of the perceived error. See Williams v. United States, 503 U.S. 

193, 203 (1992). 

Because Williams did not object to the drug quantity or the offense level 

calculation in the PSI, we review his procedural reasonableness challenge for plain 

error. United States v. Vandergrift, 754 F.3d 1303, 1307 (11th Cir. 2014) (noting 

that we review unpreserved challenges to procedural reasonableness for plain 

error). To establish plain error, a defendant must show (1) that there was an error; 

(2) the error was plain, and (3) the error affected his substantial rights. Id.

Williams failed to make such a showing. His allegation that the district court 

 3 This is incorrect. The PSI credited Williams with a total quantity of 11.77 kilograms of 

marijuana. 

4 Williams’ base offense level was 14, not 24. 

Case: 18-14072 Date Filed: 07/23/2019 Page: 5 of 9 
6

miscalculated the quantity of heroin and inflated it to 319 kilograms is unsupported 

by the record; the PSI determined that he was responsible for 11.77 kilograms of 

marijuana with an initial base offense level of 14, and did not refer to 319 

kilograms or THC oil. Further, Williams did not object to the drug quantity 

calculations, which effectively admitted those facts for sentencing purposes. See 

Wade, 458 F.3d at 1277. Finally, even if the district court had miscalculated the 

quantity of drugs, this was harmless error because Williams’ offense level was 

ultimately determined by his status as a career offender, not by the drug quantity. 

Accordingly, Williams failed to show that the district court committed plain error. 

Williams’ 160-month sentence was procedurally reasonable. 

III.

Williams next argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because 

the district court ignored mitigating § 3553(a) factors and placed too much 

emphasis on his criminal history. He also argues that this mistaken emphasis on 

criminal history resulted in a disproportionate sentence in relation to his 

codefendants. 

“We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for an abuse of 

discretion.” United States v. Osorio-Moreno, 814 F.3d 1282, 1287 (11th Cir. 

2016). The weight given to any 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factor is committed to the 

sound discretion of the district court. United States v. Clay, 483 F.3d 739, 743 

Case: 18-14072 Date Filed: 07/23/2019 Page: 6 of 9 
7

(11th Cir. 2007). The sentencing court may base its findings of fact on admissions 

in a defendant’s guilty plea, undisputed statements in the PSI report, or evidence 

presented at the sentencing hearing. United States v. Wilson, 884 F.2d 1355, 1356 

(11th Cir. 1989). The district court does not abuse its discretion when it gives 

substantial weight to a § 3553(a) factor if the sentence “was necessary to achieve 

the goals of sentencing.” Osorio-Moreno, 814 F.3d at 1287. The defendant bears 

the burden of establishing that the sentence is unreasonable in light of the record 

and the § 3553(a) factors. United States v. Thomas, 446 F.3d 1348, 1351 (11th Cir. 

2006). 

Additionally, a district court must consider the need to “avoid unwarranted 

sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found 

guilty of similar conduct.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6). But disparity does not exist if 

the defendant and his codefendants are not “similarly situated,” United States v. 

Docampo, 573 F.3d 1091, 1101 (11th Cir. 2009), and defendants with different 

criminal histories are not similarly situated, United States v. Spoerke, 568 F.3d 

1236, 1252 (11th Cir. 2009). 

Finally, although we do not presume that a sentence falling within the 

guideline range is reasonable, we ordinarily expect such a sentence to be 

reasonable. United States v. Hunt, 526 F.3d 739, 746 (11th Cir. 2008). A sentence 

imposed well below the statutory maximum penalty is another indicator of a 

Case: 18-14072 Date Filed: 07/23/2019 Page: 7 of 9 
8

reasonable sentence. See United States v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319, 1324 (11th 

Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (holding that the sentence was reasonable in part because it 

was well below the statutory maximum). 

The district court’s imposition of a 160-month sentence was substantively 

reasonable. The court stated that it considered the § 3553(a) factors and 

determined that a 160-month sentence was necessary to achieve the goals of 

sentencing. Specifically, the court emphasized that Williams had a 26-year 

criminal history with 18 prior convictions, several of which involved controlled 

substances. See, e.g., Osorio-Moreno, 814 F.3d at 1288 (holding that a sentence 

was reasonable where the district court imposed a statutory maximum penalty 

because of the defendant’s 20 prior convictions). It was within the sound 

discretion of the district court to give substantial weight to such a lengthy criminal 

history. See Clay, 483 F.3d at 743; Osorio-Moreno, 814 F.3d at 1288. 

The district court also did not create unwarranted sentencing disparities 

between Williams and his codefendants by sentencing Williams to 160 months. 

None of Williams’ codefendants that received lesser sentences were similarly 

situated because they (1) pleaded guilty to different offenses, (2) had different 

criminal histories; and (3) had different guideline ranges. Docampo, 573 F.3d at 

1101; Spoerke, 568 F.3d at 1252.

Case: 18-14072 Date Filed: 07/23/2019 Page: 8 of 9 
9

Finally, the sentence was within the guideline range and well below the 

statutory maximum of 240 months’ imprisonment, which indicates reasonableness. 

Hunt, 526 F.3d at 746; Gonzalez, 550 F.3d at 1324. The district court did not 

abuse its discretion because the 160-month sentence was substantively reasonable. 

Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 18-14072 Date Filed: 07/23/2019 Page: 9 of 9