[DO N OT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 2- 11 97 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 1- cr-0 03 27 -TCB-EC S-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, vers us AKIL SCOTT, 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 North ernDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (No ve m be r 15 , 20 12 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, W ILSON an d P RYOR, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:

Case: 12-11971 Date Filed: 11/15/2012 Page: 1 of 8Aki l Sc ot t ap pe al s h is 14 -m on th sen te nc e, im po se d a fte r pl ead in g g ui lt y to two co un ts of a tt em

pt edpo ss es si on with i nt en t t o d is tri bu te co cai ne , in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( a)(1 ), (b )(1 )(C) , and84 6 (C ou nt s 1 an d 3 ); a ndtwo co un ts of e xt orti on un de r co lo r of off ic ia l ri gh t, i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 1 95 1( a) (C ou nt s 2 an d 4 ). On ap pe al , Sco ttarg ue s tha t h is sen te nc e is subs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le be cau se th e d is tri ctco urt u nf ai rly bal an cedth e 1 8 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s t o e m ph as iz e d et erre nc e, rathe r th anful ly accou ntforhi s se lf- reh ab il it at io n. Aft er a tho ro ug h re vi ew of th e rec or d a ndbri efs , we affi rm . I. BACK GROUND Sco ttwas ade te nt io n o ffi cer a t the Fu lt on Co un ty Jail (FCJ ). In e arl y 20 10 , th e FCJ in it ia te d a n i nt ern al in ve st ig at io n b as edon rep orts fro m in m at es th at de te nt io n o ffi cers were s m ug gl in g c el l p ho ne s, ci garet te s, an d i ll eg al dru gs in to th e jail forth e in m at es . On Aug us t 2 , 20 10 , Sco ttarra ng eda drug de al with a n un de rco ve r Fed eral Bureauof I nv es ti ga ti on (FBI) ag en t p ur po rti ng to be an in m at e’s ou ts id e dru g c on ne ct io n. Ata la te r m eet in g, the ag en t g av e Sco tta ba ll oo n fi ll edwith s ha m

co cai ne an d $ 35 0 fo r th e d el iv ery, whi chSco ttga ve to th e in m at e. Sco ttth enall owe d t he in m at e to us e h is cel l p ho ne to co nf irm de li ve ry with t he ag en t. Sco ttco nt in ue d t o c omm un ic at e wit h t he ag en t b y tel ep ho ne , ex pr es si ng in te res t i n d el iv eri ng m or e dru gs to FCJ in m at es . On Sep te m be r 22 , 2 Case: 12-11971 Date Filed: 11/15/2012 Page: 2 of 820 10 , Sco ttm etwith t he same agen t an d a ccep te d a no th er b al lo onan d $ 30 0,

whi chhe th ende li ve redto th e sa m e in m at e. Sco ttwas arres te d andlat er i nd ic te d on Ju ne 29 , 20 11 , alo ng with t hr ee o th er d efen da nt s wh o wer e in di ct edforsi m il ar co nduc t. Fo r Co un ts 1 an d 3 , th e p res en te nc e in ve st ig at io n re po rt ( PSI) ass ig ne d a ba se off en se lev el of 1 2 fo r anoff en se in vo lv in g l es s tha n 2 5 g ram s o f co cai ne pu rs ua ntto U.S.S.G. § 2 D1.1 (c)( 14 ). Sco ttrece iv eda two -le ve l en ha nc em en t be cau se th e o ffen se in vo lv eddi st rib ut io n o f a co nt ro ll edsubs ta nc e in a co rrec ti on al or d et en ti onfaci li ty, se e U.S.S.G. § 2 B1 .1(b )(4 ), an d atwo -le ve l en ha nc em en t fo r ab us in g apo si ti on of p ub li c trus t i n am an ne r th atsi gn ifi can tl y faci li ta te d t he co m

m is si on or c on ceal m en t o f th e o ffen se . Se e U.S.S.G. § 3 B1 .3. The se ad jus tm en ts y ie ld edanoff

en se lev el of 1 6. Fo r Co un ts 2 an d 4 , th e PSI as si gn eda ba se off

en se lev el of 1 4, se e U.S.S.G. § 2 C1 .1, an d a dd edtwo lev el s un de r § 2 C1 .1(b )(1 ) be cau se th e o ffen se in vo lv edm or e th anon e ex to rti on . Und er § 2 C1 .1(c )(1 ), th e g reat er ad jus te d o ffen se lev el was 1 6. Sco ttrece iv eda th ree- le ve l re du ct io n fo r acc ep tanc e o f res po ns ib il it y , se e U.S.S.G. § 3 E1.1 (a) a nd(b) , y ie ld in g ato ta l o ffen se lev el of 1 3. Ba se d o n a cri m in al hi st ory

cat eg ory of I an d ato ta l o ffen se lev el of 1 3, Sc ot t’s ad vi so ry Gui de li ne im

pr is on m en t ra ng e was 12 to 18 m on th s. Th e m ax im um st atut ory 3 Case: 12-11971 Date Filed: 11/15/2012 Page: 3 of 8pe na lty

was 2 0 years’ im

pr is on m en t fo r eac h c ou nt . Neithe r pa rty ob jecte d t o t he PSI. At s en te nc in g, the di st ric t co urt s umm ari zedth e PSI’s fa ctua l fi nd in gs an d Gui de li ne cal cu la ti on s b efo re d is cu ss in g t he fact or s i n t hi s ca se , in cl ud in g t he se rio us ne ss of a n o ffen se in vo lv in g fo urfed eral fel on ie s, Sc ot t’s p ers on al ha rd sh ip s, an d h is ge nu in e rem or se an d re habi li ta ti on . The co urt co m pa redSco tt ’s cu lp ab il it y

with t ha t o f th ree o th er d efen da nt s i n t he in te res t o f av oi di ng se nt en ci ng di sp ari ty, an d d en ie d S co tt ’s reque stforon e d ay of i m pr is on m en t. The co urt s en te nc edSco ttto 14 m on th s o f im pr is on m en t an d g av e th e fo ll owi ng ex pl an at io n: The co urt h as care fu ll y

co ns id eredall sen te nc in g fa ct or s s etforthin 18 Uni te d S ta te s C od e 3 55 3( a) an d t he pro bl em th atth is de fen da nt ha s g oi ng ag ai ns t h im

is th e n eedforde te rren ce. I can no t co un te na nc e h is co nduc t s im pl y be cau se he ob vi ou sl y

ha s g enui ne ly an d t ho ro ug hl y

ch an ge d . . . . [B]ecau se of t he ser io us ne ss of t he of fen se an d b ecau se of t he fou r co un ts be in g i nv ol ve d, I b el ie ve th ata gu id el in e se nt en ce i s ap pr op ria te . (R1 -3 5 a t 1 9) . The co urt em ph as iz edth atitbe li ev edinSco ttbu t co ul d n ot

“po ss ib ly go a ny les s t ha n [1 4 m on th s] inli gh t o f th e b reac h o f th e p ub li c trus t an d th e d an ge r to th e jail .” (

Id. at 2 0) . Sco ttob

jecte d t o t he sen te nc e as subs ta nt iv el y an d p ro cedur al ly unr eas on ab le du e to th e co urt’s em ph as is on de te rren ce t o t he ex cl us io n o f th e o th er fa ct or s. 4

Case: 12-11971 Date Filed: 11/15/2012 Page: 4 of 8II . DISCUSSI ON

W e rev ie w th e rea so nabl en es s o f se nt en ces un de r a d efer en ti al ab us e-o f-d is cret io n s ta nd ard . Gal l v. Un it ed Stat es , 55 2 U.S. 3 8, 4 1, 1 28 S. Ct. 58 6, 5 91 (20 07 ). The p arty ch al le ng in g t he sen te nc e h as th e b ur de n o f es tabl is hi ng th atth e se nt en ce i s u nr eas on ab le inli gh t o f th e rec or d a ndth e § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ta ll ey , 43 1 F .3d78 4, 7 88 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) 1 (p er cu ria m). To b e p ro cedur al ly reaso nabl e, th e d is tri ctco urt m us t co rrec tl y

cal cu la te th e Gui de li ne s ra ng e, co ns id er al l o f th e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s, an d m ak e an

“ in di vi du al iz edass es sm en t b as edon th e fac ts pre se nt ed .” Se e Gal l , 55 2 U.S. at 49 –5 0, 1 28 S. Ct. 5 86 , 59 6– 97 . The di st ric t co urt m us t i m po se a se nt en ce

“ su ffi ci en t, b utno t g reat er tha n n eces sa ry , to co m pl y with t he pu rp os es ” li st edin 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a)(2 ), in cl ud in g t he ne edto refl ectth e se rio us ne ss of t he of fen se , pro m ot e res pe ctforth e la w, pro vi de jus t p un is hm en t fo r th e o ffen se , det er The § 3553(a) fa ctors include: ( 1) the nature a nd circ umstances of

the offe nse and 1 history and cha rac teristics of the de fenda nt; (2) the nee d for the se ntence to refle ct the seriousness of the offe nse; (3) the need to promote respe ct for the law and a ffor d adequate deter renc e; (4) the need to pr otect the public; (5) the nee d to provide the de fenda nt with education and vocational tra ining a nd medical c are ; (6) the kinds of se ntence s available ; (7) the Guidelines ra

ng e; (8) the pertinent policy statements of the Sente ncingCommi ssion; (9) the nee d to avoid unwar

rante d sentenc ing dispa

rities; and (10) the need to pr ovide re stitut ion to victims . 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1) –(7). 5

Case: 12-11971 Date Filed: 11/15/2012 Page: 5 of 8cri m in al co nduc t, an d p ro te ctth e p ub li c fro m th e d efen da nt ’s futur e cri m in al co nduc t. Id . at 5 0, 1 28 S. Ct. at59 6. A se nt en ce m ay be subs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le if t he di st ric t co urt arbi tra ril y sel ect s the sen te nc e, ba se s the sen te nc e on im pe rm is si bl e fac to rs , fai ls to co ns id er p ert in en t § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s, o r un jus ti fiabl y

rel ie s o n a ny on e fac to r. See Uni te d Sta tes v. Pugh , 51 5 F .3d11 79 , 11 91 –9 2 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) (ci ta ti on an d i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . A

“ se nt en ci ng jud ge sh ou ldsetforth en ou gh to sat is fy th e ap pe ll at e co urt tha t h e h as co ns id eredth e p art ie s’ arg um en ts an d h as a reas on edba si s fo r ex erci si ng hi s o wn le ga l d eci si on m ak in g aut ho rit y .” Rita v . Uni te d Sta tes , 55 1 U.S. 3 38 , 35 6, 1 27 S. Ct . 24 56 , 24 68 (20 07 ). Every § 3 55 3( a) fac to r ne edno t b e d is cu ss ed . Se e Uni te d St at es v. Sc ot t , 42 6 F .3d13 24 , 13 29 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). Ins te ad , th e d is tri ctco urt ne edon ly m ak e cl ear t ha t i t co ns id ereda nu m be r of th e se nt en ci ng fact or s. Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Do rma n , 48 8 F .3d93 6, 9 44 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). Altho ug h we d o n otau to m at ic al ly pres um e th e rea so nabl en es s o f a s en te nc e fal li ng withi n t he Gui de li ne s ra ng e, we or di na ril y ex pe ctsu cha se nt en ce t o b e reas on ab le . Uni te d Sta tes v. Hu nt , 52 6 F .3d73 9, 7 46 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d) . A sen te nc e im

po se d wel l b el ow the st atut ory m ax im um pe na lt y is an ot he r in di cat orof areas on ab le sen te nc e. See Uni te d Sta tes v. Go nz al ez , 55 0 F.3 d 1 31 9, 1 32 4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) (pe r cu ria m). W e wil l re ve rs e o nl y if “ le ft wi th 6 Case: 12-11971 Date Filed: 11/15/2012 Page: 6 of 8th e d efi ni te an d fi rm co nv ic ti on th atth e d is tri ctco urt co m m it te d acle ar erro r of jud gm en t i n wei gh in g the § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s b y arri vi ng at asen te nc e th atli es ou ts id e th e ran ge of r eas on ab le sen te nc es di ct at edby the fact s o f th e cas e.” Pugh , 51 5 F .3dat 1 19 1 (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o mit te d) . Here, Sc ot t ar gu es th athi s s en te nc e was subs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le be cau se th e d is tri ctco urt p utto o m uc h wei gh t o n t he de te rren ce fa ct orto th e ex cl us io n o f th e o th er § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s. Sco ttarg ue s tha t al th ou gh th e co urt re co gn iz edth at Sco ttha d “ tu rn edhi s l ife aro un d,” itfoc us edto o m uc h o n s en di ng a m es sa ge to ot he r FCJ em

pl oyees t hr ou gh Sco tt ’s sen te nc e. He furth er co nt en ds th athe was le ss cu lp ab le th antwo ot he r de te nt io n o ffi cers who were co nv ic te d, an d t he co urt’s co nc ernov er s en di ng a m es sa ge co ul d h av e b een ad dr es se d b y th os e o th er of fic ers ’ se nt en ces . Sco ttarg ue s tha t b ecau se th e co urt u nf ai rly bal an cedth e fact or s t o e m

ph as iz e d et erre nc e, rathe r th anful ly accou ntforhi s s el freh ab il it at io n, h is sen te nc e sh ou ldbe va cat edan d re m an de d fo r res en te nc in g. Co nt rary to Sc ot t’s ar gu m en t, the di st ric t co urt d idno t g iv e undue weig htto ge ne ral de te rren ce atth e ex pe ns e o f th e o th er § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s. Infact , th e co urt di sc us se d t he ot he r fac to rs at l en gt h, i nc lu di ng th e ap pl ic ab le Gui de li ne ran ge , Sco tt ’s bac kg ro un d a ndpo st -o ffen se reh ab il it at io n, an d t he ser io us ne ss of co m m it ti ng fou r fed eral fel on ie s i nv ol vi ng a br each of p ub li c trus t. The co urt 7 Case: 12-11971 Date Filed: 11/15/2012 Page: 7 of 8ackno wled ge d t ha t Sc ot t h ad“ tu rn edhi s l ife aro un d,” bu t fe ltth ata Gui de li ne

se nt en ce was ap pr op ria te aft er carefu l co ns id erat io n o f al l o f th e se nt en ci ng fact or s, i nc lu di ng , bu t n otli m it edto , th e n eedto de te r cri m in al co nduc t. Mo reo ve r, Sco tt ’s 14 -m on thsen te nc e was at t he lo wer en d o f th e ap pl ic ab le Gui de li ne ran ge of 1 2 t o 1 8 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t, an d wel l b el ow the st atut ory m ax im um term of 2 0 years’ im

pr is on m en t. 2 1 U.S.C. § 84 1( b) (1 )(C) ; 1 8 U.S.C. § 19 51 (a). Th is co urt o rd in ari ly exp ect s s uc h asen te nc e to be reas on ab le . Se e Gon za le z , 55 0 F .3dat 1 32 4; Hun t , 52 6 F .3dat 7 46 . Bas edon th e rec or d, Sc ot t’s se nt en ce was no t o ut si de th e ran ge of r eas on ab le sen te nc es di ct at edby the fact s o f th is cas e. Se e Pugh , 51 5 F .3dat 1 19 1. Sc ot t fa il s t o m eethi s b ur de n o f sh owi ng th athi s 1 4- m on th sen te nc e, im po se d wi th inth e Gui de li ne ran ge , is subs tant iv el y un reas on ab le inli gh t o f th e rec or d a ndth e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s. Upo n re vi ew of

th e en ti re re co rdon ap pe al , andaft er co ns id erat io n o f th e pa rti es ’ ap pe ll at e b rie fs , we affi rm . AFFIRMED.

8 Case: 12-11971 Date Filed: 11/15/2012 Page: 8 of 8