[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-13001

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SHERMAN MICHAEL PUCKETT, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 8:19-cr-00285-WFJ-AEP-1

____________________

USCA11 Case: 22-13001 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 07/17/2023 Page: 1 of 3
2 Opinion of the Court 22-13001

Before NEWSOM, GRANT, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Sherman Michael Puckett appeals his 300-month total

sentence for one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to 

distribute controlled substances and one count of obstruction of 

justice. Puckett challenges his total sentence as substantively 

unreasonable and argues that the district court gave excessive

weight to the seriousness, nature, and circumstances of the offense

conduct, particularly by considering the victim impact and the 

extreme conduct surrounding a related death, and denied his 

request for a downward variance. 

We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence 

under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United 

States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The party challenging the sentence 

bears the burden of proving that it is unreasonable. United States v. 

Tome, 611 F.3d 1371, 1378 (11th Cir. 2010).

A district court abuses its discretion when it “(1) fails to 

afford consideration to relevant factors that were due significant 

weight; (2) gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant 

factor; or (3) commits a clear error of judgment in considering the 

proper factors.” United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1190 (11th Cir. 

2010) (en banc). A district court must consider all 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) factors but is not required to give all factors equal weight. 

United States v. Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d 1249, 1254 (11th Cir. 2015). 

The decision about how much weight to assign a particular 

USCA11 Case: 22-13001 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 07/17/2023 Page: 2 of 3
22-13001 Opinion of the Court 3

sentencing factor is committed to the sound discretion of the 

district court. Id. Additionally, the sentencing court may vary 

upward based upon uncharged conduct, as it relates to the history 

and characteristics of the defendant, and the need to promote 

respect for the law, afford adequate deterrence, and protect the 

public. See United States v. Overstreet, 713 F.3d 627, 637-38 (11th Cir. 

2013) (holding that the district court was “entitled to consider the 

murder in deciding whether to vary outside the guideline range”).

Here, we conclude that Puckett’s 300-month total sentence 

is not substantively unreasonable, because the district court did not 

abuse its discretion in weighing the aggravating factors including 

the seriousness, nature, and circumstances of the crimes. Moreover, the district court was permitted to consider Puckett’s conduct 

as it related to the uncharged death and vary upward. The district 

court stated that it considered the § 3553(a) factors, and it provided 

its reasons for Puckett’s upward variance. It based his total sentence on his continued sales of drugs, his failure to stop after the 

arrests and searches, the need for specific deterrence, public safety 

concerns, the seriousness of the offense behavior and the offender 

history, avoidance of unwarranted disparities, and his conduct The 

court added its reasoning was “mostly specific deterrence.” Because the district court explained and justified its variance, which 

relied on proper grounds, it did not abuse its discretion.

Thus, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 22-13001 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 07/17/2023 Page: 3 of 3