[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 15

- 11608 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 5:14

- cr - 00009

- WTM

- RSB

- 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus JERRY WAYNE GUY, III, Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia

________________________ ( November 23, 2015 ) Befor e WILLIAM PRYOR , MARTIN and ANDERSON , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 15-11608 Date Filed: 11/23/2015 Page: 1 of 42 Jerry Guy, III, appeals his sentence of 188 months of imprisonment, following his plea of guilty to possessin g with intent to distribute methamphetamine

. 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) , (b)(1)(C). Guy challenges the constitutionality of the career - offender guideline , U nited S tates S entencing
G uidelines Manual § 4B1 .1 (Nov. 2014), and the substantive reasonableness of his sentence. We affirm. Guy makes two challenges to the constitutionality of the career - offender guideline , both of which fail. Guy argues that the career offender provisions violate his right to d ue p rocess and e qual p rotection under the Fifth Amendment, but that argument is foreclosed by United States v. Brant , 62 F.3d 367 (11th Cir. 1995) , where we held that “ [t] he career offender scheme of using a defendant ’ s criminal record in considering both his offense level and his criminal history under the Sentencing Guidelines bears a rational relationship to a legitimate governmental
purpos e

— ‘ to prevent repeat offenders from continuing to victimize society. ’” Id. at 368 (quoting United States v. Johns , 984 F.2d 1162, 1164 (11th Cir. 1993) ). Guy also argues that the “imposition of a draconian mandatory sentence” under the guideline constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, but we have held that a defendant, like Guy, who is senten c e d within the statutory limits cannot make the threshold showing that his sentence is grossly disproportionate to his offense , see United States v. Johnson , 451 F.3d 1239, 1243

Case: 15-11608 Date Filed: 11/23/2015 Page: 2 of 43 (11th Cir. 2006) . Guy was sentence d at the low end of his advisory guideline
range , which was unaffected by his classification as a career offender

. Guy amassed 22 criminal history points , and with a base offense level of 30 for
possess ing between 50 and 150 grams of methamphetamine , U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(5), that was increased by two levels for possessin g a firearm, id. § 2D1.1(b)(1), and another two levels for distributing a controlled subs tance as he entered a correctional facility, id. § 2D1.1(b)(4) , he had an offense level of 34 and a criminal history category of IV , which was identical to what he faced as a career offender with two prior convictions for felony offenses , id. § 4B1.1(a). Guy’s sentence of 188 months of imprisonment is substantively reasonable. Guy was arrested after o fficers discovered in his vehicle a stolen .38 caliber revolver, a digital scale, a straw containing methamphetamine, and more than $600
dollars , and after arriving at jail, Guy transfer red 121.88 grams of methamphetamine to another inmate. Guy’s drug offense , as the district court stated, was his “third drug

- related conviction in 2 years and his sixteenth conviction in 9 years” and “occurred 3 months a fter [he] was paroled for two prior drug

- related convictions.” And Guy had an extensive criminal background that included three prior convictions for possessing, selling, and manufacturing illegal drugs; six convictions that involved violent assaults and b atteries of girlfriends and mistreating a six

- year - old boy; and two convictions for driving under the influence.

Case: 15-11608 Date Filed: 11/23/2015 Page: 3 of 44 T he district court reasonably determined that “all of the[] aggravating factors [were] taken into account by the guideline calculation” and “th at a sentence at the bottom of [Guy’s] advisory guideline range” o f 188 to 2 35 months of imprisonment satisfied the statutory purposes of sentencing. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); United States v. Irey , 612 F.3d 1160, 119 0

– 91 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc). That Gu y ’s sentence is within the advisory range and far less than his maximum statutory penalty of 2 0 years of imprisonment also suggests that his
sentence is reasonable. See United States v. Gonzalez , 550 F.3d 1319, 1324 (11th Cir. 2008). The district court did not abuse its discretion.
We AFFIRM Guy’s sentence. Case: 15-11608 Date Filed: 11/23/2015 Page: 4 of 4