[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 18-11726

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:17-cr-00077-WSD-JFK-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

versus

DAVEON BRANTLEY, 

 Defendant – Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________

 (February 21, 2019)

Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:

Daveon Brantley appeals his 265-month sentence after pleading guilty to: one 

count of conspiracy to sex traffic a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1594(c); one 

count of sex trafficking of a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a); one count of 

Case: 18-11726 Date Filed: 02/21/2019 Page: 1 of 4 
2

production of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251(a) and (3); and 

one count of distribution of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§§ 2252(a)(2) and (b). He argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable 

because his co-defendant received less time, and two other defendants in separate 

cases who committed similar offenses also received lesser sentences. We disagree

and affirm.

We review a sentence for substantive reasonableness under an abuse of 

discretion standard. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Even if the 

district court’s sentence is more severe or more lenient than the sentence we would 

have imposed, we reverse only when the district court “committed a clear error of 

judgment in weighing the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors by arriving at a sentence that 

lies outside the range of reasonable sentences dictated by the facts of the case.” 

United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1190 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc). 

The presentence investigation report (“PSR”) calculated a base offense level 

of 34 under the advisory guidelines. See U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3. The district court 

applied five sentencing enhancements: a two level enhancement because Mr. 

Brantley unduly influenced a minor to engage in prohibited sexual conduct, under 

§ 2G1.3(b)(2)(B); a two level enhancement because the offense involved the use of 

a computer, under § 2G1.3(b)(4)(A); a two level enhancement because the offense 

involved the commission of a sex act, under § 2G1.3(b)(4)(A); a two level

Case: 18-11726 Date Filed: 02/21/2019 Page: 2 of 4 
3

enhancement because Mr. Brantley was an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor, 

under § 3B1.1(c); and a five level enhancement because Mr. Brantley’s offense of 

conviction was a covered sex crime and Mr. Brantley engaged in a pattern of activity 

involving prohibited sexual conduct, under § 4B1.5(b)(1). 

Mr. Brantley’s criminal history was significant. He had previously been 

convicted of possessing cocaine with the intent to distribute, possessing a firearm 

during a felony, possessing marijuana with the intent to distribute, and armed 

robbery. Based on these prior convictions, the PSR established a criminal history 

category of IV. 

The advisory guidelines range, given Mr. Bentley’s current offenses and 

criminal history, was life in prison. The district court ultimately veered downward 

and sentenced Mr. Brantley to 265 months in prison, 15 years of supervised release, 

a $400 special assessment, and restitution. 

Mr. Brantley argues on appeal that his sentence is substantively unreasonable 

because his co-defendant was sentenced to only 115 monthsin prison. He also points 

to two defendants in other cases who engaged in allegedly similar conduct and who 

received sentences of 92 months and 205 months. His sentence of 265 months, he 

argues, violates § 3553(a)(6)’s requirement that the district court “consider . . . the 

need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar 

records who have been found guilty of similar conduct.” 

Case: 18-11726 Date Filed: 02/21/2019 Page: 3 of 4 
4

The district court properly considered and rejected Mr. Brantley’s sentencingdisparity arguments. Neither Mr. Brantley’s co-defendant nor the two other 

identified defendants are “valid comparator[s] for § 3553(a)(6) purposes” because 

they did not engage in similar conduct and did not have “similar records.” United 

States v. Martin, 455 F.3d 1227, 1241 (11th Cir. 2006). Mr. Brantley’s co-defendant 

was 20 years old and had no criminal history. The district court also found his codefendant less culpable, applying a supervisory enhancement to Mr. Brantley for 

being the “leader” and noting that his co-defendant was “largely . . . in prison 

because of your influence over her.” D.E. 101 at 10. Nor were the two other 

defendants Mr. Brantley identified similar enough for the purposes of § 3553(a)(6). 

As the government pointed out at sentencing, those defendants did not engage in the 

production and distribution of child pornography, their victims were of a different 

age, and their guideline ranges were significantly lower. And even if these cases 

were sufficient comparators, the district court considered all three of these 

defendants’ cases, along with the other § 3553 factors, Mr. Brantley’s conduct, and 

his criminal history. 

The district court did not commit clear error of judgment by determining that 

Mr. Brantley’s case warranted a longer sentence and verging downward from the 

advisory guidelines range of life imprisonment. Accordingly, we affirm. 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 18-11726 Date Filed: 02/21/2019 Page: 4 of 4