FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MAY 23, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 13 35 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 8 :0 9- cr-0 04 48 -VMC- TGW -1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us
VINCENT EDWARD UNDERW OOD, 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 Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma y 23 , 20 11 ) Befo re BARKETT, MARCUS an d P RYOR, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Vin cen t EdwardUnd erwo odap pe al s h is sen te nc e o f 18 0 m on th s o f

im pr is on m en t fo r po ss es si ng with i nt en t t o d is tri bu te co nt ro ll edsubs ta nc es , 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a), b ei ng a fel on in po ss es si on of afir earm , 18 U.S.C. § 9 22 (g )(1 ), an d p os se ss in g afir earm

in furth eran ce o f a dru g t raff ic ki ng off en se , id . § 9 24 (c)( 1) . W e aff

irm. Und erwo odpl ead edgu il ty to dru g a ndfir earm s o ffen se s wi th ou t the be ne fit of a pl ea ag reem en t. His pre se nt en ce i nv es ti ga ti on rep ort p ro vi de d aco m bi ne d ba se off en se lev el of 2 4. Un it edSta te s Se nt en ci ng Gui de li ne s M anua l § 2D1 .1 (2 00 9) . The rep ort s ta te d t ha t the Supr em e Co urt h adhe ldinUni te d S ta te s v . Sp ears , 12 9 S . Ct. 8 40 (20 09 ), th ata di st ric t co urt m ay va ry fro m th e cra ckco cai ne gu id el in es , bu t the rep ort s ta te d t ha t a v ari an ce wo ul d n otaffe ctUnd erwo od ’s se nt en ce b ecau se he face d m an da to ry m in im um sen te nc es of 1 0 years f

orhi s dru g cri m e, 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (b )(1 )(B) , andof 5 y ears forpo ss es si ng a fi rearm , 18 U.S.C. § 9 24 (c)( 1) (A)(i ). The re po rt a ls o d et ai le d Un de rwo od ’s th ree p rio r co nv ic ti on s fo r se ll in g a ndpo ss es si ng il le ga l dru gs an d o th er cr im in al co nduc t. At h is sen te nc in g h eari ng , Und erwo odask edth e d is tri ctco urt t o v ary fro m th e cra ckco cai ne gu id el in es , bu t the di st ric t co urt re jecte d t he reque st“ fo r th e reas on s . . . set [] forth” in th e p res en te nc e rep ort. Aft er the di st ric t co urt s en te nc ed Und erwo od , he o bjec te d a ndarg ue d t ha t h is sen te nc e was un reas on ab le . The 2di st ric t co urt re sp on de d “ th atth e m in im um m an da to ry

sen te nc es [were] ap pr op ria te an d fa ir” ba se d o n Un de rwo od ’s cri m in al hi st ory . Und erwo odarg ue s t ha t h e is “ en ti tl ed ” to be sen te nc edacco rd in g t he Fai r Sen te nc in g Act , whi ch was e na ct edwhi le hi s ap pe al was p en di ng , bu t thi s arg um en t i s fo recl os edby ourde ci si on inUni te d S ta te s v . Gom es , 62 1 F .3d13 43 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 0) , cert . den ie d, 1 31 S. Ct. 1 83 3 (2 01 1) . In Go m es , we hel d t ha t the sa vi ng s s ta tu te , “ 1 U.S.C. § 10 9[ ,] ba rs th e Actfro m affe ct in g . . . pu ni sh m en t” for cri m es co m

m it te d b efo re i ts en act m en t. Id . at 1 34 6. Un de rwo odals o arg ue s t ha t hi s s en te nc e to th e m an da to ry m in im um term of i m pr is on m en t b as edon th e 1 00 to 1 c rackco cai ne rat io vi ol at es hi s ri gh t t o e qu al pro te ct io n u nd er the Fif th Am en dm en t o f th e U.S. Co ns ti tu ti on , bu t we h av e h el d t ha t thi s d is parit y is no t un co ns ti tu ti on al , Uni te d S ta te s v . Kin g, 9 72 F.2d12 59 , 12 59 –6 0 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 2) . Und erwo od ’s sen te nc e is AFFIRMED .

3