[DO NOT PUBLISH]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)

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 15-11608 Date Filed: 11/23/2015 Page: 1 of 4 
2

Jerry Guy, III, appeals his sentence of 188 months of imprisonment, 

following his plea of guilty to possessing with intent to distribute 

methamphetamine. 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). Guy challenges the 

constitutionality of the career-offender guideline, United States Sentencing 

Guidelines 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 due process and equal protection 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 

purpose—‘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 sentenced 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 4 
3

(11th Cir. 2006). Guy was sentenced 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 

possessing between 50 and 150 grams of methamphetamine, U.S.S.G. 

§ 2D1.1(c)(5), that was increased by two levels for possessing a firearm, id.

§ 2D1.1(b)(1), and another two levels for distributing a controlled substance 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 officers 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 transferred 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 after [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 batteries 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 4 
4

The district court reasonably determined that “all of the[] aggravating factors 

[were] taken into account by the guideline calculation” and “that a sentence at the 

bottom of [Guy’s] advisory guideline range” of 188 to 235 months of 

imprisonment satisfied the statutory purposes of sentencing. See 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a); United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1190–91 (11th Cir. 2010) (en 

banc). That Guy’s sentence is within the advisory range and far less than his 

maximum statutory penalty of 20 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