[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-13368

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

KENNETH SIZEMORE, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 5:21-cr-00035-TKW-MJF-2

____________________

USCA11 Case: 22-13368 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 08/21/2023 Page: 1 of 4
2 Opinion of the Court 22-13368

Before LAGOA, BRASHER, and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Sizemore appeals his 120-month total sentence for 

one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine and oxycodone and one count of distribution of 

methamphetamine. Sizemore challenges his total sentence as substantively unreasonable because the district court gave excessive

weight to the seriousness of the offense conduct, considered a 

codefendant’s assumed Guidelines range, and denied his request 

for a further downward variance. After review, we affirm 

Sizemore’s sentence. 

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). 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 [18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)1] factors.” United States v. Irey, 612 

F.3d 1160, 1189 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc). 

1 The § 3553(a) factors include (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense 

conduct and the history and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need for 

the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of the offense; (3) the need of 

the sentence imposed to afford adequate deterrence; (4) the need to protect 

the public; (5) the need to provide the defendant with educational or vocational training or medical care; (6) the kinds of sentences available; (7) the Sentencing Guidelines range; (8) the pertinent policy statements of the Sentencing 

USCA11 Case: 22-13368 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 08/21/2023 Page: 2 of 4
22-13368 Opinion of the Court 3

Sizemore has not met his burden to show his 120-month total sentence is substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Tome, 

611 F.3d 1371, 1378 (11th Cir. 2010) (explaining the party challenging the sentence bears the burden of proving that it is unreasonable

based on the facts of the case and the § 3553(a) factors). The district 

court was within its discretion to weigh the seriousness of the offense conduct more heavily than his mitigating factors. See United 

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

a district court must consider all 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors but is 

not required to give all factors equal weight and the decision about 

how much weight to assign a particular sentencing factor is committed to the sound discretion of the district court). The district 

court considered Sizemore’s age, remorse, prior criminal history, 

and substantial assistance to the Government in granting him a sentence below the Guidelines range. See United States v. Hunt, 526 F.3d 

739, 746 (11th Cir. 2008) (stating we expect a sentence within a defendant’s Guidelines range to be reasonable). 

The district court stated it considered the § 3553(a) factors 

and proceeded to discuss the factors in relation to Sizemore. It described the harm of opioids and the large quantity of drugs distributed by Sizemore in analyzing the severity of the offense conduct. 

The district court was permitted to compare Sizemore and his 

Guidelines range to his codefendants, including Johnny Carr, given 

that the § 3553(a) factors include the need to prevent sentencing 

Commission; (9) the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities; and 

(10) the need to provide restitution to victims. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

USCA11 Case: 22-13368 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 08/21/2023 Page: 3 of 4
4 Opinion of the Court 22-13368

disparities. Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d at 1254; 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). It 

used the Guidelines range of Carr as its “starting point” in calculating Sizemore’s sentence to prevent sentencing disparities, but then 

clarified that it was doing so with respect to where Sizemore would 

have been, sentence-wise, except for the substantial assistance that 

Sizemore provided. 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in weighing the 

aggravating and mitigating factors including the seriousness of the 

crimes and the Guidelines range of a similarly situated codefendant. Sizemore’s total sentence was not substantively unreasonable. 

Thus, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 22-13368 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 08/21/2023 Page: 4 of 4