FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T NOVEMB ER 14, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 11 47 3 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :0 9- cr-0 00 49 -LGW -J EG-1

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l l Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, vers us BENNIE SAMS, J R., ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (No ve m be r 14 , 20 11 ) Befo re MAR CUS, MARTIN an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Ben ni e Sam s, J r., ap pe al s h is 20 0- m on thsen te nc e, im po se d b el ow theap pl ic ab le gu id el in e ran ge of 2 40 m on th s, af te r pl ead in g g ui lty

to po ss es si ng with in te ntto di st rib ut e co cai ne ba se , a.k.a. “ crac k c oc ai ne ,” in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( a)(1 ) an d 8 41 (b )(1 )(C) . For the reas on s s ta te d b el ow, we af firm . I. The reco rdsh ows th atcert ai n i nd iv idua ls de li ve red25 0 g ram s o f cra ck co cai ne to Sam s twice a m on th ov er ap pr ox im at el y 18 m on th s (ato ta l o f ab ou t 9 ki lo gr am s) an d t ha t Sa m s p ai d a t l eas t $ 15 ,00 0 fo r eac h d el iv ery. Acco rd in g t o Sam s, h e d idno t p ur ch as e th e dru gs ou tri gh t, b utso ldth em withi n h is co m

m un ity an d p ai d t he pro ceed s t o h is supp li ers , kee pi ng a po rti on of t he pro fit s t o h im se lf. App lying th e 2 00 8 v ers io n o f th e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es , th e d is tri ctco urt as si gn edSam s a b as e o ffen se lev el of 3 8, p ur su an t t o U.S.S.G. § 2D1 .1(c )(1 ), be cau se hi s dru g o ffen se in vo lv edm or e th an4.5 ki lo gr am s o f cra ckco cai ne . 1 Afte r va rio us ad

jus tm en ts , Sam s t ot al off en se lev el be cam e 3 7 a nd , com bi ne d wi th a cri m in al hi st ory

cat eg ory III, y ie ld eda Gui de li ne ran ge of 2 62 to 32 7 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. Ho wev er, b ecau se th e rel ev an t s tatu te pro vi de d am ax im um se nt en ce o f 20 y ears , Sam s’s g ui de li ne ran ge de crea se d t o 2 40 m on th s, p ur su an t t o The Guide lines treat c rac k coca ine and powde r coc aine diff ere ntly for se ntencing 1 purposes. SeeU.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c). F or example, § 2D1.1(c ) provides a base of fenselevel of 38 if an off ense involves 4.5 kilograms or more of cr ack c ocaine . Id. § 2D1.1(c )(1) . Howeve r, that same amount of powder c ocaine would result in a base offe nse leve l of 30, and 9 kilograms of powder coca ine would yield a base offe nse leve l of 32. See id. § 2D1.1(c )(4) -(5) . 2U.S.S.G. § 5 G1.1 (a).

At the sen te nc in g h eari ng , Sam s ar gu edfora se nt en ce b el ow the gu id el in e ran ge an d, t og ethe r with h is two witne ss es , pre se nt edsev eral m it ig at in g fa ct or s t o th e co urt, n am el y , hi s ac cep tanc e o f res po ns ib il ity , dec en t ch arac te r, in vo lv em en t in hi s ch ur ch , go odworketh ic , go odbe ha vi orwhi le rel eas edon bo nd , anda rel at iv el y m in orcri m in al hi st ory . Befo re i m po si ng sen te nc e, th e d is tri ctco urt st at edth atitha d l is te ne d t o S am s an d h is witne ss es , rev ie wedth e p res en te nc e in ve st ig at io n re po rt ( “ PSI” ), an d “ care fu ll y co ns id ered ” al l o f th e se nt en ci ng fact or s l ai d o utin18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a). The co urt the n s en te nc edSam s t o 2 00 m on th s i n p ris on , exp la in in g t ha t the sen te nc e was ap pr op ria te du e to “ th e v ol um e of dru gs ” in vo lv edinhi s o ffen se . II. Sam s ra is es sev eral is su es on ap pe al . Firs t, h e arg ue s tha t, g iv enth e se nt en ci ng di sp ari ty betweencrac k c oc ai ne an d p owd er co cai ne off en se s, the di st ric t co urt v io la te d h is co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s t o due pro ces s an d e qu al pro te ct io n by calcu la ti ng th e se nt en ce u si ng th e cra ckco cai ne gu id el in e. Seco ndhe co nt en ds th athi s s en te nc e was pro cedur al ly unr eas on ab le be cau se th e d is tri ctco urt fa il edto ad dr es s su a s

po nt e th e d is pa rity

be twee n c rackan d p owd er co cai ne sen te nc es an d fai le d t o c on si de r th e im

pa ctof t he crac k- to -p owd er ra ti o o n t he ap pl ic ab le

3gu id el in e ran ge . Sam s al so arg ue s tha t h is sen te nc e was subs tant iv el y

un reas on ab le un de r th e 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s. Whe re a d efen da ntfai ls to rai se anob jecti on inth e d is tri ctco urt, we re vi ew on ly for p la in erro r. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ro dr ig ue z , 39 8 F .3d12 91 , 12 98 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). Und er p la in -err orrev ie w, we m ay no t re ve rs e “un le ss th ere i s: (1) erro r, (2 ) th atis pl ai n, an d (3 ) th ataffe ct s s ub st an ti al rig ht s.” Id. (qu ot at io n o m it te d) .

“ If al l thr ee co nd it io ns are m et , an app el la te co urt m ay th enex erci se it s d is cret io n to no ti ce a fo rfei te d e rro r, bu t o nl y if (4 ) th e err orser io us ly affect s the fai rn es s, in te gr ity , or p ub li c rep ut at io n o f jud ic ia l p ro ceed in gs .” Id . (qu ot at io n o m it te d) . W e g en eral ly revi ew th e rea so nabl en es s o f a s en te nc e und er a “ de fere nt ia l ab us eof -d is cret io n s tand ard .” Gal l v. Un it ed Stat es , 55 2 U.S. 3 8, 4 1, 1 28 S.Ct . 58 6, 59 1, 1 69 L.Ed.2d44 5 (2 00 7) . A. Con st itut io na li ty Sam s d idno t ra is e h is co ns ti tu ti on al arg um en t i n t he di st ric t co urt, an d, th eref or e, we rev ie w th e is su e fo r pl ai n e rro r. Se e Rod ri gu ez , 39 8 F .3dat 1 29 8. W e h av e p rev io us ly rejecteddu e p ro ces s an d e qu al pro te ct io n c ha ll en ge s t o t he Gui de li ne s b as edonth e d is pa rit y be twee n c rackco cai ne an d p owd er co cai ne se nt en ces . Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Ha nn a , 15 3 F .3d12 86 , 12 87 -8 9 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 8) (rejec ti ng a du e p ro ces s an d e qu al pro te ct io n c ha ll en ge to U.S.S.G. § 2 D1.1 (c) 4ba se d o n t he sen te nc in g d is pa rit ie s caus edby the crac k- to -p owd er rati o) ; Uni te d

St at es v. Kin g , 97 2 F .2d12 59 , 12 60 (19 92 ) (h ol di ng th atth e d iff eren ce i n se nt en ci ng sch em es be twee n c rackco cai ne an d p owd er co cai ne off en de rs do es no t vi ol at e th e co ns ti tu ti on al gu aran te e o f equa l p ro te ct io n) . Accor di ng ly, th e d is tri ct co urt co m

m it te d n o e rro r in th is reg ard .

B. Reas on ab le ne ss A di st ric t co urt “ m

us t i m po se a pr oc edur al ly andsubs tant iv el y reas on ab le se nt en ce.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Go nz al ez , 55 0 F .3d13 19 , 13 23 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). “ A se nt en ce m ay

be pro cedur al ly unr eas on ab le if the di stric t co urt i m pr op erl y cal cu la te s the Gui de li ne s ra ng e, tr eat s the Gui de li ne s as m an da to ry rathe r th an advi so ry , fai ls to co ns id er the ap pr op ria te st atut ory fact or s, s el ect s a s en te nc e ba se d o n c le arl y

erro ne ou s fa ct s, o r fai ls to ad equa te ly exp la in th e ch os en se nt en ce.” Id. “ The rev ie w forsubs tant iv e unr eas on ab le ne ss in vo lv es ex am in in g th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces , in cl ud in g a n i nqui ry in to whet he r th e st atut ory fact or s i n § 35 53 (a) s up po rt t he sen te nc e in qu es ti on .” Id. at13 24 . Und er § 35 53 (a), the sen te nc in g c ou rt s ha ll im po se a se nt en ce “ su ffi ci en t, bu t n otgre at er tha n n eces sary ” to co m pl y with t he purp os es of s en te nc in g s etforth in § 3 55 3( a)(2 ), whi chin cl ud e th e n eedto refl ectth e se rio us ne ss of t he off en se , pr om ot e res pe ctforth e law, pro vi de jus t p un is hm en t fo r th e o ffen se , det er 5cri m in al co nduc t, an d p ro te ctth e p ub li c fro m th e d efen da nt ’s cri m es . 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a)(2 ). Oth er fa ct or s t o b e co ns id eredin cl ud e th e n atur e an d c irc um st an ces of th e o ffen se , th e h is to ry

an d c ha ract eri st ic s o f th e d efen da nt , th e av ai labl e se nt en ces , th e Gui de li ne s’ po li cy an d app li cab le ran ge , th e n eedto av oi d un warrant edsen te nc e d is pa rit ie s, an d t he ne edto pro vi de res ti tu ti on to vi ct im s. Id. § 3 55 3( a)(1 ), (3 )-(7 ). As an in it ia l m at te r, be cau se Sam s d idno t ch al le ng e h is gu id el in e ran ge in th e d is tri ctco urt o n t he ba si s o f th e cra ck/p owd er s en te nc in g d is pa rit y , we rev ie w th e is su e o nl y

forpl ai n e rro r. Se e Rod

ri gu ez , 39 8 F .3dat 1 29 8. Here, the di st ric t co urt p ro pe rly calc ul at edSam s’s g ui de li ne ran ge . Sect io n 2D1 .1(c )(1 ) of

th e Gui de li ne s p ro vi de s a b as e o ffen se lev el of 3 8 i f anoff en se in vo lv es m or e th an4.5 ki lo gr am s o f crac k c oc ai ne , andSam s d oe s n otdi sp ut e th at he was re sp on si bl e fo r ap pr ox im at el y 9 k il og ram s o f cra ckco cai ne . Se e U.S.S.G. § 2 D1.1 (c)( 1) . Cert ai nl y , a di st ric t co urt m ay va ry fro m th e g ui de li ne ran ge ba se d on it s d is ag reem en t wi th th e cra ck -to -p owd er ra ti o. Ki mbr ou gh v. Uni te d Sta tes , 55 2 U.S. 8 5, 1 07 -1 1, 1 28 S.Ct . 55 8, 5 73 -7 6, 1 69 L.Ed.2d48 1 (2 00 7) . Howev er, no th in g re qu ire s the co urt t o d is reg ardth e ap pl ic ab le gu id el in es or t o a ddres s the crac k/po wde r di sp ari ty su a s po nt e . Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. S ni pes , 61 1 F .3d85 5, 8 70 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 0) (st at in g t ha t, wh il e Ki mbr ou gh di sapp ro ve d o f th e cra ckco cai ne 6gu id el in e, itdi d n otin va li da te th e g ui de li ne ), cer t. d en ie d , 13 1 S .Ct. 2 96 2 (2 01 1) . Mo reo ve r, ha vi ng co ns id eredth e § 35 53 (a) s en te nc in g fa ct or s, the di st ric t co urt was no t re qu ire d t o e xp li ci tl y ad dr es s the crac k/po wde r se nt en ci ng di sp ari ty as on e of th os e fac to rs . Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. S an ch ez , 58 6 F .3d91 8, 9 36 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (s ta ti ng th ata di st ric t co urt n eedno t d is cu ss each § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or inex pl ai ni ng it s se nt en ce as lo ng as i t “ co ns id ers th e d efen dant ’s arg um en ts at s en te nc in g a nd st at es th atitha s t ak enth e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s i nt o a cco un t” ), cer t. d en ie d , 13 0 S .Ct. 19 26 (20 10 ). Acco rd in gl y , Sam s’s s en te nc e was pro cedur al ly reaso nabl e. Sam s’s s en te nc e o f 20 0 m on th s was als o s ub st an ti ve ly reaso nabl e. The di st ric t co urt l is te ne d t o a rg um en ts th atSam s an d h is witne ss es pre se nt edin m it ig at io n, “ care fu ll y

co ns id ered ” al l o f th e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s, an d i m po se d a se nt en ce 4 0 m on th s b el ow the gu id el in e ran ge . Mor eo ve r, inde te rm in in g t ha t 2 00 m on th s was anap pr op ria te pe na lty , th e d is tri ctco urt p ro pe rly focu se d o n t he am ountof dru gs in vo lv ed . Giv enth atSam s s ol d app ro xi m at el y $3 0,0 00 wort h o f crac k c oc ai ne a m on thfor 18 m on th s, the co urt co ul d re as on ab ly con cl ud e th at Sam s was a m ajorna rco ti cs di strib ut oran d t ha t n ot hi ng les s tha n 2 00 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t wo ul d c on st itut e a s uf fic ie ntpu ni sh m en t fo r hi s o ffen se . Se e 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a)(1 )-(2 ); Uni te d Sta tes v. Cla y , 48 3 F .3d73 9, 7 43 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ) (“ The weig htto be acco rd edany gi ve n § 35 53 (a) fa ct oris a m at te r co m mitte d t o 7th e so un d d is cret io n o f th e d is tri ctco urt.” ( qu ot at io n o m it te d) ).

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we af firm Sam s’s s en te nc e. AFFIRMED.

8