[DO NOT PUB LISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS
FOR T HE ELE VENTH C IRC UIT

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ No. 1 1-1519 8 Non-Argum en t C al en da

r

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C . Doc ke t No . 6: 96-c r-00004 -BAE-GR S-1
UNITED STAT ES OF AME RIC A,

Pla int iff-Appe lle e,

ve rsus
DONNELL SUMM ER SETT
De fend an t-Appe lla nt.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appe al from

the Uni te d Sta

te s Di stri ct

Co urt for the South ern Dist

ric t of Ge orgia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (Dec em be r 26, 2 012)
Be fore W ILSON, JOR

DAN, a nd AN DER SON, C irc uit

Jud ge s.
PER C URIAM :
Donn el l Sum

m ers et t, ap pe ari ng pro se , ap pe al s the dis tric t co urt’ s de nia l of Case: 11-15198 Date Filed: 12/26/2012 Page: 1 of 7his m oti on, file d pursu an t to 18 U.S.C

. § 3582 (c)( 2) , f or a se nte nc e redu ct ion ba se d

on Am en dm en ts 706 an d 711 to the Unit ed Sta te s Sent en ci ng Guid el ine s. Afte r a 1
revi ew of th e rec ord a

nd t he pa rtie s’ brie fs, we a ffirm

. 2

In 1996 , a jury co nvi ct ed Mr. Sum m er se tt of (1) co nspi ring to dis tribu te , an d

to po ss es s wit

h int en t to dis tribu te , co ca ine an d co ca ine ba se , in vio la tio n of 21
U.S.C

. § 846; (2) two co unt s of dis tribu tin g co cai ne ba se , in vio la tio n of 21 U.S.C

. § 841(a )(1); an d (3) poss es sin g co ca ine ba se wit h int en t to dis tr ib ut e, in vio la tio n
of § 841(a )(1). Ba se d on a tot al offens e le ve l of 44 an d Mr. Sum m ers ett’s cr imin al
his tory , the gui de lin e se nte nc e wa s life im priso nm en t. The dis tric t co urt se nte nc ed
Mr. Sum m ers et t to life im

priso nm en t for the co nspi rac y an d poss es sio n co unt s, an d
480 m ont hs’ im pr is onm en t for the oth er two co unt s. The se nte nc es we re to be

se rved c onc urrent ly

. O n O ctobe r 29, 2010 , Mr. Sum m ers et t file d a § 3582 (c)(2) m oti on to redu ce
his se nte nc e in lig ht of Am en dm en ts 706 an d 711 to the U ni te d Sta te s Sent en ci ng

After it denied the § 3582(c) (2) motion, the district court also denied a subsequent motion 1 for rec onsideration. Mr. Summersett’s notice of appea l de signa ted the district c ourt’s denial of his motion for rec onsideration as the order on appea l. Mr. Summersett’s brief and th e Go v er n m en t’s response , howeve r, focuse d o n t he merits of the district court’s denial of the initial motion. We there fore construe this as an appea l of t he dis trict court’s order deny ing t h e m o tion for a sentenc e reduc tion. See KH Outdoor, LLC v. City of Trussvill e , 465 F.3d 1256, 1260 (11 Cir. 2006) (noting t h “libera l allowanc e of appea ls from orders not expressly desig nated in the not ice o f appeal” where the unspec ified orde r pre dates the or der de signa ted in the notice of appea l).
The g overnme nt filed a motion for summary aff irmance

. Be cause Mr. Summersett filed an 2 initial brief, we deny the g overnme nt’s reque st for summary aff irmance , but g rant its reque st to trea t the motion as its responsive brief

. 2 Case: 11-15198 Date Filed: 12/26/2012 Page: 2 of 7Guid el ine s. The dis tric t co urt found that Mr. Sum m ers et t wa s el igi ble for a
redu ct ion in his tot al offens e le ve l from 44 to 42 , r es ult ing in an am en de d gui de lin e
rang e of 360 m ont

hs t o li fe i m

priso nm en t.
On N ove m

be r 22, 2010 , the dis tric t co urt de nie d Mr. Sum m ers et t’ s §
3582 (c)(2) m oti on. In its order , th e dis tric t co urt sta te d the follo wing rea sons for
de ny ing the m oti on:
The de fend an t dis tributed sig nific an t qua nti tie s of cra ck co ca ine in Toom bs Co un ty , Ge orgia an d oth er are as
. The Co urt rec al ls wit h spe ci fic it y se ve ral ac ts of vio le nc e tha t oc cu rred durin g the co urse of thi s co nspi rac y
. The de fend an t pose s a sig nific an t r is k to the publ ic

. Furthe r, he ha s ne ve r de m onst rat ed rem orse f

or his cri m ina l ac ts. For the se rea sons , th e de fend an t’ s m oti on i s de nie d.
On De cem

be r 3, 2010 , Mr. Sum

m ers et t file d a m oti on for rec onsi de rat ion , whic h
the dis tric t c ourt d en ie d on Oc tob er 2 0, 20 11.
Mr. Sum m ers et t appe al s the de nia l of his m oti on for a se nte nc e redu ct ion

. F irst, he argu es tha

t the dis tric t co urt fai le d to se pa rat e his co -con spi rat ors’ co nd uc t
from his ind ivi dua l ac tio ns, and th at th e ac ts of vio le nc e tha t oc cu rred durin g the

co nspi rac y we re not at

tribu ta ble to him ind ivi dua lly

. Sec ond, he co nte nds tha t the
dis tric t co urt’ s de ci sio n res ult ed in an unwa rrant ed se nte nc ing dis pa rity

. W e are

not pe rsua de d by

Mr. Sum m ers et t’ s a rgum en ts.
W e revi ew a dis tric t co urt’ s de nia l of a § 3582 (c)(2) m oti on for ab use of
dis cre tio n. Se e Unit ed Sta te s v. Brown , 332 F.3d 1341 , 1343 (11th Ci r. 2003 ). In

3 Case: 11-15198 Date Filed: 12/26/2012 Page: 3 of 7rel ev an t pa

rt, § 3 582(c )(2) provid es :
The co urt m ay not m odi fy a te rm of im priso nm en t on ce it ha s be en im pose d e xc ep t t

ha t— (2) in the ca se of a de fend an t who ha s be en se nte nc ed to a te rm of im pr is onm en t ba se d on a se nte nc ing rang e tha t ha s subs eq ue ntl y be en lowe red by the Sent en ci ng Co m m iss ion purs ua

nt to 28 U.S.C

. 994(o), upon m oti on of the de fend an t

... the co urt m ay redu ce the te rm of im priso nmen t, aft er co nsi de ring the fac tors se t forth in se ct ion 3553 (a) to the ex te nt tha t the y are appl ic able , if suc h a redu ct ion is co nsi ste nt wit h ap plicable pol ic y sta te m en ts iss ue d by the Sent en ci ng Co m m iss ion

. Alt houg h the dis tric t co urt m ust co nsi de r the ap pli ca

ble fac tors se t f

or th in 18
U.S.C

. § 3553 (a), it is giv en co nsi de rabl e dis cre tio n w it h r es pe ct to the we igh t to
be ac co rded to an

y spe ci fic fac to r
. Se e U

nit ed Sta te

s v. Shaw , 560 F.3d 1230 , 1237 (11th Ci r. 2009 ). “ [A] dis tric t co urt comm it s no r ev ers ibl e error by fai lin g to

art ic ula te spe ci fic al ly the ap pli ca bil ity —i f an y —of ea ch of the se ct ion 35 53 ( a)
fac tors, as lon g as the rec ord de m onst rat es tha t the pertine nt fac tors we re ta ke n int o

ac co unt .” Unit ed Sta te

s v. Egge rsd

orf , 126 F.3d 1318 , 13 22 ( 11 th Ci r. 1997 ). A
dis tric t co urt m ay de ny a requ es t for a se nte nc e redu ct ion aft er de te rm ini ng the

am en de d gui de lin es rang e an d co nsi de ring the ap propria te fac tors unde r § 3553 (a).
Se e Unit ed Sta te s v . Vau tie r , 144 F.3d 7 56, 7 60 (11 th C ir. 19 98).
Mr. Sum

m ers et t cl ai m s tha t the dis tric t co urt “ fai le d to ev al ua te an d

co nsi de r [him ] as an ind ivi dua l” an d im prope rly at

tr ib ute d his co -con spi rat ors’

4 Case: 11-15198 Date Filed: 12/26/2012 Page: 4 of 7co nduc t to him

. Se e Appe lla nt’s Br ie f at 7. The dis tric t co urt’ s orde r, howe ve r, pla inl y de m onst

rat es that the co urt co nsi de red fac tors spe ci fic to Mr. Sum m ers et t,

suc h as the sig nific an t qua nti tie s of cra ck co ca ine tha t he dis tribu te d, his la ck of

rem orse , an d the risk he pose d to the publ ic

. The dis tric t co urt di d not ab use its
dis cre tio n w he n citi ng the se rea sons for de ny ing Mr. Sum m ers et t’ s requ es t for a

se nte nc e redu ct ion

. None the le ss, Mr. Sum

m ers et t sa y s tha t th e di stri ct co urt wa s requ ire d to

“ se pa rat [e] him from the ac ts or vio le nt ac ts co m m itt ed by his co -defenda nts
durin g the co ur se of the co nspi rac y .” Appe lla nt’ s Bri ef at 11. First, we not e tha t
the dis tric t co urt did not spe ci fic al ly at tribu te the vio le nt ac ts to Mr. Sum m ers et t.
Se e Orde r Re ga

rding Mot ion for Sent en ce Re duc tion P ur su an t to 18 U.S.C

. §
3582 (c)(2), No. 6:9 6-cr- 00 00 4- 001 (S.D. Ga

. Nov. 22, 2010 ), EC F No. 933 (“ The
Co urt rec al ls wit

h spe ci fic ity se ve ral ac ts of vi ol en ce tha t oc cu rred durin g the

co urse of the co nspir acy.”). Mr. Sum m ers et t co nc ed es tha t his co -con spi rat ors

co m m itt ed vio le nt ac ts du ring the co urse of the co nspi rac y , se e Appe lla nt’ s Bri ef at
9 ( “[T]he re we re ac ts of vio le nc e tha t oc cu rred durin g the co urse of the

co nspi rac y .” ), an d the dis tric t co urt did not err in ta ki ng into ac co unt the vio le nt

na ture of the co nspi rac y
. Cf

. U

. S.S.G. § 1B 1.1, cm t 2. (“ [A] de fend an t is

ac co unt ab le for the co nduc t (ac ts an d om iss ion s) of oth ers th at w as both in

5 Case: 11-15198 Date Filed: 12/26/2012 Page: 5 of 7furthe ranc e of the joi ntl y unde rta ke n cri m ina l ac tiv ity an d rea sona bly fores ee able
in c onne ct ion

wit h th at c rim ina l a ct ivi ty .” ).

F in al ly, Mr. Sum

m ers et t argu es for the first tim e on ap pe al tha t his se nte nc e
is dis proport ion at el y hig he r tha n the se nte nc es rec ei ve d by three oth er de fend an ts
who obt ai ne d se nte nc e redu ct ion s unde r § 3582 (c)(2) aft er ha vin g be en se nte nc ed

to life im pr is onm en t. W e dis ag ree wit h Mr. Sum

m ers et t’ s co nte nti on tha t an y suc h
dis pa rity wa rrant s re ve rsa l.
Abse nt a sim il arl y -sit

ua te d co m

pa rat or, Mr. Sum

m ers et t ca nnot show an

unwa rrant ed se nte nc ing di sp arity

. Se e Unit ed Sta te s v. Spoe rk

e , 568 F.3d 1236 , 1252 (11th Ci r. 2009 ). It is not en ough fo r Mr

. Sum m ers et t to sim ply co m pa re the
ini tia l se nte nces an d r ed uc ed se nte nc es of oth ers to his own; the re m ust be

co m pa rabl e unde rly ing fac tua l ci rcum sta nc es
. Se e Unit

ed Sta te s v. Ca mpbel l , 491
F.3d 1306 , 1317 (11th Ci r. 2007 ) (noti ng tha t ba re sta tis tic s wit hout conte xt are
unpe rsua siv e); U

ni te d Sta te

s v. Ne ws om , 428 F.3d 685, 689 (7th Ci r. 2005 ) (“ [O]n e

ne ed s to know m ore tha n the cri m e of co nv ic ti on and the tot al le ngt h of the

se nte nc e to ev al ua te dis pa riti es ; the spe ci fic fac ts of the cri m es an d the de fend an t’s
ind ivi dua l ch ara ct eri st ic s are al so pe rtine nt.” ). Afte r revi ew ing Mr. Sum m ers et t’ s purport ed co m

pa r at or s, we ca

nnot sa y tha t an unwa

rrant ed se nte nc ing dis pa rity

ex ist s.

6

Case: 11-15198 Date Filed: 12/26/2012 Page: 6 of 7In sum , we find no ab use of dis cre tio n in the di st r ic t co urt’ s de ci sio n to de ny

Mr

. Sum m ers et t’ s requ es t for a redu ce d se nte nc e. The dis tric t co urt’ s de nia l of Mr.
Sum m ers et t’ s § 3 582(c )(2) m oti on i s a ffirm ed

. AFFIR M ED.

7 Case: 11-15198 Date Filed: 12/26/2012 Page: 7 of 7