[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-15246

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 9:03-cr-80056-WPD-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

KARLTON D. SPAULDING, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(April 20, 2015)

Before WILSON, WILLIAM PRYOR and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Karlton Spaulding appeals the denial of his motion to reduce his sentence. 

Case: 14-15246 Date Filed: 04/20/2015 Page: 1 of 4 
2

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Spaulding based his motion on Amendment 782 to the 

Sentencing Guidelines. We affirm.

Spaulding disappeared before he was indicted for conspiring to possess with 

intent to distribute at least five kilograms of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),

841(b)(1)(A), 846, attempting to possess with intent to distribute at least five 

kilograms of cocaine, id., and carrying a firearm during and in relation to drug 

trafficking, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i). After his arrest, Spaulding moved

unsuccessfully to dismiss his indictment based on the denial of his right to a 

speedy trial in violation of the Sixth Amendment. At trial, a jury rejected 

Spaulding’s defense of entrapment and found him guilty of the firearms offense

and of conspiring to and attempting to distribute cocaine, but the jury found that 

Spaulding’s drug crimes involved only 500 grams of cocaine.

At sentencing, the district court relied on the jury’s finding as to drug 

quantity. Although the presentence investigation report assigned Spaulding an 

offense level of 32 based on the 7 kilograms of cocaine that he arranged to 

purchase initially, the district court sustained Spaulding’s objection to the amount. 

The district court determined that the jury had a “rational basis” to find that 

Spaulding had negotiated to buy a lesser quantity of cocaine on several occasions, 

and the district court assigned Spalding an offense level of 30 based on a drug 

amount of 3.5 to 5 kilograms of cocaine. With a criminal history of III, Spaulding 

Case: 14-15246 Date Filed: 04/20/2015 Page: 2 of 4 
3

had an advisory sentencing range between 121 and 151 months of imprisonment 

for his drug crimes and a mandatory consecutive sentence of 60 months of 

imprisonment for his firearm offense. The district court sentenced Spaulding to 

181 months of imprisonment based on the significant amount of cocaine involved, 

his participation in criminal activities during a term of probation, and his criminal 

history, which included a conviction for aggravated assault for shooting a man and 

a charge for essentially identical misconduct that had been nol prossed. See 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a). 

Spaulding moved to reduce his sentence to 157 months, but the district court 

denied the motion. See id. § 3582(c)(2). The district court reduced Spaulding’s 

offense level by two levels and calculated a revised sentencing range of 97 to 121 

months with a consecutive term of 60 months for his firearm offense. The district 

court refused to reduce Spaulding’s sentence because he had been given “the 

benefit of the doubt” and found responsible for “less than five kilograms” of 

cocaine; his sentence was “fair and just” under his new sentencing range; and a 

shorter sentence “would not promote respect for the law,” “afford adequate 

deterrence,” or “protect the public” in the light of the “significant amount of 

cocaine” involved and his “significant criminal history.” The district court found 

that “Spaulding’s post-conviction efforts at rehabilitation” did “not merit a 

reduction in what was [already] a lenient sentence.”

Case: 14-15246 Date Filed: 04/20/2015 Page: 3 of 4 
4

The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Spaulding’s 

motion to reduce. Spaulding argues that the district court ignored its earlier 

determination that the jury’s verdict established the amount of cocaine and treated 

that verdict as a lucky break that did not apply to the motion to reduce, but the 

district court did not disturb its original determination that Spaulding’s offense 

involved less than five kilograms of cocaine, see United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 

778, 780 (11th Cir. 2000). Based on the amended drug quantity table, the district 

court correctly assigned Spaulding an offense level of 28, U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(6), 

which resulted in a sentencing range between 97 and 121 months of imprisonment, 

id. Ch. 5, Pt. A. See Bravo, 203 F.3d at 780. 

The district court reasonably determined that a reduction of Spaulding’s 

sentence would not serve the statutory purposes of sentencing. See 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a). Spaulding argues that the purposes of the crack cocaine amendments, 

his good behavior “between the commission of [his] offense [and] his arrest,” and 

his postconviction efforts at rehabilitation all weigh in favor of granting his motion 

to reduce, but we do not reweigh the sentencing factors, United States v. Saac, 632 

F.3d 1203, 1214–15 (11th Cir. 2011). We cannot say that the district court clearly 

erred in weighing the sentencing factors by imposing a sentence that lies outside 

the range of reasonable sentences. See id.

We AFFIRM the denial of Spaulding’s motion to reduce his sentence.

Case: 14-15246 Date Filed: 04/20/2015 Page: 4 of 4