FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J UNE 22, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH]

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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 14 36 3 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd er

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 6 :1 0- cr-0 01 45 -MS S-KRS -1

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pla in ti ff - Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us ANTONIO DE ON BIZZELL, Defen da nt- App el lant .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Jun e 2 2, 2 01 2) Befo re CARNES, J ORDAN, andANDERSON, Circu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Ant on io Biz zel l ap pe al s h is 78 0- m on th to ta l s en te nc e fo r dr ug tra ffi ck in g an d fi rearm

co nv ic ti on s. He co nt en ds th athi s s en te nc e is subs tant iv el y un reas on ab le . I. A fed eral grandjury returne d asec on d s up ers ed in g i nd ic tm en t ch arg in g Bi zzel l wi th tencri m es : o ne co un t o f co ns pi racy to p os se ss with i nt en t t o di st rib ut e co cai ne ba se invi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( a)(1 ) an d 8 46 ; thr ee co un ts of p os se ss io n wi th in te ntto di st rib ut e co cai ne ba se invi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) , (b) (1 )(C) ; thr ee co un ts of c arrying an d u si ng a fi rearm in rel at io n t o adru g traff

ic ki ng cri m e in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 9 24 (c)( 1) –( 2) ; an d th ree c ou nt s o f po ss es si on of afir earm by a con vi ct edfel on invi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. §§ 92 2( g) (1 ) an d 9 24 (a)( 2) . Bizz el l p le ad edno t g ui lty , anda jury retu rn ed a v erd ic t fi nd in g h im

gu il ty on e ach co un t. The pre se nt en ce i nv es ti ga ti on rep ort g ro up edto ge th er the co nv ic ti on s fo r drug co ns pi racy, dru g p os se ss io n, an d p os se ss io n o f a fi rearm by a con vi ct ed fel on , see Uni te d S ta te s Se nt en ci ng Gui de li ne s § 3D1 .2(d ) (No v. 2 01 0) , andit reco m m en de d ato ta l o ffen se lev el of 3 2. Itals o re co m m en de d acri m in al hi st ory cat eg ory of I V. Com

bi ne d wi th Biz zel l’s t ot al off en se lev el of 3 2, the res ul t was a gu id el in es ran ge of 1 68 to 21 0 m on th s i n p ris on forth os e co nv ic ti on s. 2The PSR al so st at edth ata pe rs onco nv ic te d o f us in g afir earm inrel at io n t o a dru g traff

ic ki ng cri m e is subjec t t o am an da to ry min im um 5-year co ns ecu ti ve se nt en ce o n the fir stco un t o f co nv ic ti on an d t o a25 -y ear c on se cu ti ve sen te nc e o n each “ se co ndor s uc ces si ve co nv ic ti on .” See 1 8 U.S.C. § 92 4( c)(1 )(A)(i ), (C)( i), (D)(i i). Be cau se Biz zel l was co nv ic te d o f th ree c ou nt s o f po ss es si ng a fi rearm in rel at io n t o adru g traff

ic ki ng cri m e, he is subjec t t o m an da to ry m in im um co ns ecu ti ve sen te nc es of 6 0 m on th s o n t he fir st§ 9 24 (c) c ou nt , 30 0 m on th s o n the se co nd , andan ot he r 30 0 m on th s o n t he th ird—a t ot al of 6 60 m on th s. Th os e co ns ecu ti ve sen te nc es be cam e th e g ui de li ne s ra ng e fo r th e § 92 4( c) co un ts as we ll . See U.S.S.G. § 2K2 .4(b ). So h is to ta l g ui de li ne s ra ng e was 82 8 t o 8 70 m on th s fo r al l t enco nv ic ti on s. Bi zzel l d idno t o bjec t t o the PSR. He as ke d t he co urt t o i m po se a 0- m on th se nt en ce o n the sev enno n- 18 U.S.C. § 9 24 (c) c ou nt s i n l ig htof the to ta l 6 60 - m on th sen te nc e th e co urt was requi redto im po se on th e th ree § 92 4( c) co un ts . The di st ric t co urt ad op te d the PSR, v ari eddo wnwar d, an d i m po se d a78 0- m on th to ta l s en te nc e: 12 0- m on th co nc urren t s en te nc es on each no n- § 9 24 (c) c ou nt ; a 6 0- m on th co ns ecu ti ve sen te nc e o n the fir st§ 9 24 (c) c ou nt ; a 3 00 -m on thco ns ecu ti ve se nt en ce o n the sec on d § 92 4( c) co un t; an d a no th er 3 00 -m on th co ns ecu ti ve se nt en ce o n the th ird§ 9 24 (c) c ou nt . 3Exp la in in g the sen te nc e, th e d is tri ctco urt s ta te d t ha t i t h adco ns id eredth e

fact or s an d p ur

po se s l is te d i n 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a). Th e co urt al so st at edth atit ha d t o i m po se a “ Draco ni an ” 6 60 -m on th sen te nc e fo r th e th ree 1 8 U.S.C. § 92 4( c) co nv ic ti on s an d tha t i t h adco ns id eredBiz zel l’s ar gu m en ts fora 0- m on th sen te nc e on th e n on -§ 92 4( c) co un ts . Evenso , th e co urt co nc lu de d t ha t the 78 0- m on th

“ se nt en ce [was ] 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 st atut ory pu rp os es of s en te nc in g,” an d i t b as edth e sl ig htdo wnwar d v ari an ce o n Bi zzel l’s tro ub le d c hi ldho od , dru g d ep en de nc y , andrem or se . The co urt, h owe ve r, reject edBiz zel l’s re qu es t fo r a 0 -m on th sen te nc e o n t he no n- § 9 24 (c) c ou nt s, reas on in g: “ [M]y

de ci si on no t t o s im

pl y ig no re the un de rlyin g dru g o ffen se s i s bo rn e o utof t he no ti on th atothe r de fen da nt s ap pe ar b efo re the Co urt o n dru g of fen se s n otfaci ng an y

gu n o ffen se s, an d I c an ’t leg it im at el y say to the m

th ey sh ou ldbe pu ni sh edforth ei r drug off en se s an d h e sh ou ldn’t . . . .” II. Bi zzel l ap pe al s h is 78 0- m on th to ta l s en te nc e, co nt en di ng th atitis subs tant iv el y

un reas on ab le . He arg ue s tha t the di st ric t co urt d idno t p ro pe rly 1 Bizzell also contends that the court should have order ed that a se ntence for one of the § 1 924(c) counts run conc urre ntly to the consec utive sentenc es for the other two § 924( c) c ounts. As Bizzell recognizes, however, that contention is forec losed by our pre cede nt. See United States v. Wright, 33 F.3d 1349, 1350 ( 11th Cir. 1994) (“The plain languag e of the statute expressly states that a ter

m of imprisonment imposed under sec tion 924(c) c annot run concur rently with any other ter m of imprisonment, period. No exceptions are provided.” ).

4co ns id er the sev eri ty of th e 6 60 -m on th sen te nc e itwas re qu ire d t o i m po se on th e th ree § 92 4( c) co nv ic ti on s. If i t h addo ne so , Biz zel l ar gu es , itwou ldha ve im po se d alo wer t ot al sen te nc e.

“ Oursubs tant iv e rea so nabl en es s re vi ew is gu id edby the fact or s i n 1 8 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a).” Un it edSta te s v . Whi te , 66 3 F .3d12 07 , 12 17 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ). The di st ric t co urt i s re qu ire d t o i m po se a se nt en ce tha t i s “ su ffi ci en t, b utno t gr eat er tha n n eces sa ry , to co m pl y with t he pu rp os es ” li st edinth atst atut ory pr ov is io n. 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a). Th os e p ur po se s i nc lu de th e n eedto refl ectth e se rio us ne ss of t he off

en se , pro m ot e res pe ctforth e la w, pro vi de jus t p un is hm en t o f th e o ffen se , det er cr im in al co nduc t, 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, an d p ro vi de th e d efen da ntwith n eed ededuc at io na l o r vo cat io na l tra in in g o r m ed ic al care . Id. § 35 53 (a)( 2) . Am on g o th er fa ct or s, the di st ric t co urt m us t al so co ns id er the na tu re an d c irc um st an ces of t he off en se , th e h is to ry

an d ch arac te ris ti cs of t he de fen da nt , th e ap pl ic ab le gu id el in es ran ge , andth e n eedto av oi d u nwa rran te d s en te nc in g d is pa rit ie s. See id . § 3 55 3( a)(1 ), (4 ), (6 ).

“ The bu rd enof e st ab li sh in g t ha t a s en te nc e is un reas on ab le li es with t he pa rty chal le ng in g i t.” Whi te , 66 3 F .3dat 1 21 7. “ W e wil l v acat e a s en te nc e fo r subs tant iv e unr eas on ab le ne ss ‘ if, b uton ly if, we are l eftwith t he de fin it e 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 5th e § 35 53 (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 reas on ab le sen te nc es di ct at edby the fact s o f th e cas e.’” Id. (quo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v. Ir ey , 61 2 F .3d11 60 , 11 90 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (enba nc )). Bi zzel l h as no t s ho wn tha t h is sen te nc e is subs tant iv el y un reas on ab le . His 78 0- m on th to ta l s en te nc e is be lo w hi s g ui de li ne s ra ng e o f 82 8 t o 8 70 m on th s, an d we us ua ll y

ex pe cta be lo w-th e-g ui de li ne s s en te nc e to be reas on ab le . See Whit e, 66 3 F .3dat 1 21 7. Th e d is tri ctco urt s ta te d t ha t i t co ns id eredth e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s an d B iz zel l’s ar gu m en ts for a 0- m on th sen te nc e o n t he no n- § 9 24 (c) c ou nt s, wh ic h m ean s i t co ns id eredhi s ar gu m en t tha t the 66 0- m on th sen te nc e o n t he § 9 24 (c) co nv ic ti on s was en ou gh to co m pl y with 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a). Th e co urt co nc lu de d, h owe ve r, th atth e n eedto av oi d apo te nt ia l s en te nc in g d is pa rit y res ul ti ng fro m

a 0- m on th sen te nc e o n t he un de rlyin g dru g c on vi ct io ns ou twei gh ed th e “ Draco ni an ” n atur e o f th e § 92 4( c) s en te nc es . Thatco nc lu si on do es no t re nd er Bi zzel l’s s en te nc e unr eas on ab le . AFFIRMED.

6