F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT May 9 , 2 008 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

N o. 07- 1162 3 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D.C. Dock etNo. 0 6- 20 60 0- CR-F AM UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us RICAR DO ORLANDO SCOTT, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

(M ay 9 , 200 8) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, MA RC U S an d W IL SO N , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: D ef en dant- Appe llant R ic ar do O rl an do S co tt ap pe al s hi s 12 0- m onth
se nte nc e im

pose d a ft er

aj ur y c onvi ct ionf

or c onsp ir ing and atte m

pti ng t o po sse ssThe g overnme nt a sserts that Scott did not pr operly object to the sentenc e as unrea sonable a fter 1 it was imposed and that we should r eview his pr esent challeng e only for plain e rror . But we need no t de c ide thi s is su e be c a us e , e ve n und e r a

re a so na ble ne ss s tand ard , Sc ott ’s a pp e a l f a ils
. 2 wit h i nt en t t o d is tri bu te 10 0 k il og ram s o r m or e o f m ari juan a, 21 U.S.C. § 8 46 . No
rev ers ib le erro r ha s b een sh own ; we af fir m . On appeal, Scott argues that his sentence -- 12 m onth s above the adviso ry Guidelines range -- wa s procedurally and subs tantively

unreasonable. W e re view Sc ott ’ s se nte nc e fo r re as ona ble ne ss i n th e lig ht o f the f ac tor s se t ou t i n 18 U
. S. C. § 35 53 (a). Un it edSta te s v . W in in ge ar, 4 22 F.3d 12 41 , 12 44 -4 6 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5)
. And w e evaluate the r easonableness of a sentence using a deferential abuse-ofdiscretion stand ard. G all v. U nited States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (200 7). 1 Brief ly stated, under sec tion 3 553(a), a district court shou ld consid er,
am ong oth er

thi ngs, the na tur e an d c ir cum stanc es of the of fe nse , the his tor

y and ch ar ac te ri sti cs of

the de fe ndant, the ne ed

f or the se nte nc e to p ro vid e ad equa te de te rr en ce , r es pe ct

f or the law , and p ro te ct ionof the pub lic , pol ic y

state m en ts o f the S en te nc ing Co m

m iss ion , pr ovi sio n f

or the m ed ic al and e duc at ion al ne ed s of the de fe ndant, and the ne ed to av oid unw ar rante d se nte nc ing dis pari tie s. S ee 18 U
. S. C. § 35 53( a) (1 )- (7 ). “ [T ] he party w ho c ha lle nge s th e se nte nc e be ar s th e burden of establish ing th at the sentence is unreasonable in the ligh t of both [the]The district c ourt deter mined Scott’s ba se offe nse level pursuant to U .S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)( 7), and 2 enhanc ed it by

2 levels for

obstruction of justice, U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, based on Scott’s per jured trial t e s t i m o n y. 3 re co rd and the f ac tor s inse ct ion355 3( a)
. ” U nit ed S ta te s v. T al le y , 431 F
. 3d 7 84, 78 8 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5)
. W e conclude that Scott’ s sentence wa s reasonable. The district court
co rr ec tly c al cu la te d S co tt’ s a dvi sor y G uid el ine s r an ge a t 87 to 108 m onths. 2 T houg h S co tt’ s 12 0- m onth se nte nc e w as above that r an ge , it w as w el l be lowthe 480-m onth statutory

m axim um sentence. See 21 U. S. C. § 841 (b)(1)( B); W ini nge ar , 422 F
. 3d at 12 46 ( co m pari ng, a s on e ind ic at ionof r ea sona ble ne ss, the
ac tua l pr iso n te rm

im pose d a ga ins t the statut or y m ax im um ). I n a ddi tio n, the dis tr ic t c ourt e xpl ai ne d th at it c onsi de re d th e se ct ion355 3( a) f ac tor s and a sentence above the Guidelines range w as appropriate in Scott’ s case. The district
co urt sp ec if

ic al ly c onsi de re d th at

S co tt ha d c om

m itt ed a ne ar ly ide nti ca l dr

ug
cr im e fi ve y ears be fo re but r ec ei ve d on ly

a90- day se nte nc e in s ta te c ourt; thu s, the
co urt de te rm ine d th at

the G uid el ine s r an ge did not suf fi ci en tly pr om ote r es pe ct

f or th e la w and de te r Sco tt fro m co m m it ti ng fut ur e cri m es . See § 35 53 (a)( 2) (A), (B). The district court also, in its justifications for an above-G uidelin es sentence, cited Sco tt ’s con ti nu edrefu sa l t o a ccep t re sp on si bi li ty andhi s p erju redtri al tes ti m on y .We b r ie f ly a d dr e s s Sc o tt ’ s s p e c if ic ar gume n ts . H is ar gume n t th at th e d is tr ic t c ourt g ave 3 unre a so na

ble we ig ht t o c e rt a in s e c tio n 3 55 3( a ) f a c tor s to the de tr ime nt o f o the rs is wi tho ut m e ri t; the cour t can de termine the a

ppropriate weig ht to g ive t he sec tion 3553(a) f actor s. See United States v. Wil liams, 456 F.3d 1353, 1363 (11th Cir. 2006) cer t. dismissed, 127 S.Ct . 3040 (2007), a brog ated in part on diffe rent grounds by Kimbroug h v. United States, 128 S.Ct. 558 (2007) (explaining that “[w]e will notsubstitut e our judg ment in weig hing the rele vant fa ctors.”) . We also rejec t Scott’s argument that the district court just ified i ts sentenc e based on its own disag ree ment with sentencing policy ; the rec ord cle arly

ref lects t hat the cour

t considere d the Guidelines a nd the sec tion 3553(a) fac tors in determiningt h at S cott ’s situation warr anted a n above- Guidelines sentenc e. The g overnme nt’s rec ommendation of a se ntence at the low end of the Guidelines ra ng e does not be ar on whether

the cour t imposed a rea sonable sente nce. 4 T he dis tr ic t c ourt w as not r equir ed to state on the r ec or d th at it e xpl ic itl y co nsi de re d e ac h of

the se ct ion355 3( a) f

ac tor s. U nit ed

S ta te s v. S co tt, 426 F
. 3d 1324 , 132 9 ( 11th C ir
. 200 5)
. A nd the dis tr ic t c ourt a de qua te ly j ust if ie d it s 12
- m onth up w ar d vari an ce . S ee G al l, 128 S
. Ct
. a t 59 7 ( expla ini ng tha t a se nte nc ing j udge “ m ust c onsi de r the e xte nt o f the de viatio n and e nsur e that the j ust if ic at ionis suf fi ci en tly c om pe lli ng t o su

ppor t the de gr ee of

the vari an ce ”)
. C ontrary to Sc ott ’ s a sse rt ion , ase nte nc e out sid e the G uid el ine s r an ge ne ed not be j ust if ie d by
ex tr ao rd inary

c ir cum stanc es . I d. a t 59 4- 95. H er e, the dis tr ic t c ourt de te rm ine d th at the G uid el ine s r an ge did not y ie ld a reasonable sentence, and noth ing in the rec ord convin ces us the sentence w as unr ea sona

ble
. B as ed

on the f ac tor s ou tli ne d inse ct ion355 3( a) and o ur r ev ie wof the r ec or d, w e co nc lud e that S co tt ha s no t c ar ri ed his bur de n of

sho w ing that hi s sentence w as unreasonable. 3 AFFIR MED.