FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T FEB 9, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 12 76 5 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock et No. 1 :0 9- cr-0 00 23 -WL S-TQL-1

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A,
Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,

ve rs us LIGE CHAPPELL, III,
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 ur t for th e Mi dd le Dis tri ct of Ge or gi a

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Feb ru ary 9, 2 01 2)Befo re HULL, MARCUS an d B LACK, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

PER CURI AM: Lig e Ch ap pe ll , III, ap pe al s hi s 93 -m on th to ta l se nt en ce, im po se d aft er he was
fo un d gu il ty by a jury of po ss es si on wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e m or e th an fiv e gr am s of

co cai ne ba se , in vi o l a t i o n o f 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( a)(1 ) an d 84 1( b) (1 )(B) (ii i), 1

po ss es si on wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e co cai ne , in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. §§ 8 4 1 (a)( 1)

an d 84 1( b) (1 )(C) , po ss es si on of m ari juan a, in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. § 84 4, an d

po ss es si on of a fir earm in fu rth eran ce of a dr ug tra ffi ck in g crim e, in vi ol at io n of 18
U.S.C. § 92 4( c)(1 )(A). On ap pe al , Ch ap pe ll arg ue s th at hi s se nt en ce is su bs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le be c a us e th e di st ric t co ur t fai le d to ad eq ua te ly co ns id er m it ig at in g

ev id en ce an d al so pl aced un du e em ph as is on hi s cri mi n a l h i st or y
. Afte r th or ou gh

rev ie w, we affi rm
. W e rev ie w th e se nt en ce a di st ric t cou rt im po se s for “ reas on ab le ne ss ,” whi ch
“m e r e l y a sk s whe th er th e tri al co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n.” Uni te d St at es v. Pu gh , 51 5 F .3d 11 79 , 11 89 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (q uo ti ng Ri ta v. Unit ed Sta te s, 5 51 U.S. 33 8,
35 1 (2 00 7) ).

I n the Fa ir Sentencing Act of 2010, Cong ress ra ised the threshold re quired to trig g er the 1 5-y ear statutory minimum sentenc e for

coca ine base from 5 g rams to 28 g rams. F air Sentenc ing Act of 2010, Pub.L . No. 111–220, § 2(b), 124 Stat. 2372 (2010) . Be cause the district court deter mined that the Fa ir Sentencing Act wa s retroa ctively applicable to Chappell’s ca se, this is not an issue in this appeal.
2In rev ie win g se nt en ces fo r reas on ab le ne ss , we typic al ly pe rfo rm two st ep s. Id

.

Fi rs t, we “ ‘ens ur e th at th e di st ric t co ur t co m m it te d n o s i g ni fic an t pr oc ed ur al erro r,

su ch as fai li ng to cal cu la te (o r im pr op erl y cal cu la ti ng ) th e Gui de li ne s ran ge , tre at in g
th e Gui de li ne s as m an da to ry , fai li ng to co ns id er th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s, se le ct in g a

se nt en ce ba se d on cl earl y erro ne ou s fact s, or fai li ng to ad eq ua te ly ex pl ai n th e ch os en

se nt en ce -- in cl ud in g an exp la na ti on fo r an y de vi at io n fro m th e Gui de li ne s rang e.’”
Id . (qu ot in g Gal l v . Uni te d S ta te s, 5 52 U.S. 38 , 51 (20 07 )).
If we co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t pr oc ed ur al ly err, we m us t co ns id er

t h e “‘ s u b s t a n t i v e r e a s o n a b l e n e s s o f t h e s e n t e n c e i mp o s e d u n d e r a n
ab us e-o f-d is cret io n st an da rd ,’ ” ba se d on th e “ ‘tot al it y of th e ci rcu m st an ces .’ ” Id

. (q uo ti ng Gall , 55 2 U.S. at 51 ). Thi s rev ie w is “ de fere nt ia l,” req ui rin g us to de te rm in e

“ whe th er t he sen te nc e im po se d b y th e d is tri ct co ur t fai ls to ach ie ve th e p ur po se s o f

se nt en ci ng as st at ed in se ct io n 35 53 (a).” Uni te d St at es v. Tall ey , 43 1 F.3 d 78 4, 78 8 ( 11 th Ci r. 20 05 ). “ [W] e wil l no t se co nd gu es s th e weig ht (o r la ck th ereo f) th at th e [d is tri ct co ur t] acco rd ed to a gi ve n fact or
... as lo ng as th e s e n t e n c e ul ti m at el y
im po se d is reas on ab le in li gh t of all th e ci rcu m st an ces pre se nt ed .” Uni te d Stat es v.
Sn ip es , 61 1 F.3 d 85 5, 87 2 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 10 ) (q uo ta ti on , al te rat io n an d em ph as is

om it t e d ) , cert

. de ni ed , 13 1 S.Ct

. 29 62 (2 01 1)

. W e wil l “ va cat e th e se nt en ce if, bu t

on ly if, w e a r e l e f

t wit h th e de fin it e an d fir m co nv ic ti on th at th e di st ric t co ur t

3co m

m it te d a cl ear erro r of jud gm en t in weig hi ng th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s by arri vi ng at

a se nt en ce th at li es ou ts id e th e ran ge of reas on ab le se nt en ces di ct at ed by th e fact s of

t h e cas e.” Uni te d St at es v. Irey, 61 2 F.3 d 11 60 , 11 90 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 10 ) (en b a n c ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d) , cert . den ie d, 1 31 S. Ct. 1 81 3 (2 01 1)

. W he n im po si ng a se nt en ce, th e di st ric t c o u r t ne ed on ly ack no wled ge th at it

co ns id ered th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s an d ne ed no t di sc us s each of th e fact or s in di vi du al ly.
Uni te d St at es v. Am ed eo , 48 7 F.3 d 82 3, 83 3 (11 th Ci r. 20 07 ). And , al th ou gh we do

no t au to m at ic al ly pr es um e reas on ab le ne ss fo r a se nt en ce wit hi n th e gu id el in es ran ge ,

we or di na ril y ex pe ct a wit hi n- gu id el in es se nt en ce to be reas on ab le

. Uni te d St at es v.
Hun t, 52 6 F.3 d 73 9, 74 6 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 08 ). The pa rty ch al le ng in g th e se nt en ce carr ie s
th e b ur de n o f es ta bl is hi ng un reas on ab le ne ss . Tall ey , 43 1 F .3d at 7 88

. Ch ap pe ll ha s no t carr ie d hi s bu r d e n o f de m on st rat in g th at hi s se nt en ce was

su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le

. In de ed , th e di st ric t co ur t im po se d a se nt en ce wit hi n th e 2

gu id el in e ran ge fo r th e gr ou pe d co un ts , an d we or di na ril y ex pe ct su ch a se nt en ce to
be reas on ab le

. Hun t, 52 6 F.3 d at 74 6. Add it io na ll y , as th e reco rd sh ows , th e di st ric t

co ur t sp eci fic al ly di sc us se d se ve ral of th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s at th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng ,

As an initial matter, Chappe ll does not specifica lly challeng e the pr ocedur al 2
rea sonablene ss of his total sentence and has w aived a ny claim in this respec t. See United States v. J ernig an, 341 F .3d 1273, 1283 n.8 (11th Cir. 2003) (holding that issues not raised in an initial brief on a ppeal a re de emed a

bandoned)

. 4in cl ud in g Ch ap pe ll ’s pe rs on al hi st or y an d ch arac te ris ti cs , th e ne ed to de te r Ch ap pe ll

fro m fu tu re cri m in al co nd uc t, an d th e ad vi so ry se nt en ci ng gu id el in e ran ge , whi le al so
ack no wled gi ng th at it ha d ta ke n al l of th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s un de r co ns id erat io n pr io r

to im po si ng Ch ap pe ll ’s se nt en ce. Mo reo ve r, co nt rary t o C h a p pe ll ’s co nt en ti on on
ap pe al , th e reco rd of th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng refl ect s th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d co ns id er

co un se l’s m it ig at io n arg um en ts reg ard in g Ch ap pe ll ’s em ploy m en t an d fa

m ily his tory

. And in an y ev en t, even if th e di st ric t cou rt em ph as iz ed on ly so m e of

th e se nt en ci ng
fact or s, it di d no t ne ed to di sc us s each of th em in di vi du al ly. Am ed eo , 48 7 F

. 3 d at
83 3. The refo re, in li gh t of th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s an d th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces
in th is cas e, we affi rm

Ch ap pe ll ’s sen te nc e as reas on ab le

. AFFIRMED.

5