Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eugene Jerome SMITH, a.k.a. Sperm, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-25
Citations: 223 F. App'x 884
Docket Number: No. 06-14384
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eugene Jerome SMITH, a.k.a. Sperm, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 223
Pages: 884–885

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eugene Jerome SMITH, a.k.a. Sperm, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-14384
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
April 25, 2007.
Patrick Jackson, Pensacola, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.
E. Bryan Wilson, Tallahassee, FL, Tiffany Hope Sims, Pensacola, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Before DUBINA, CARNES and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Eugene Jerome Smith appeals his sentence of 300-months' imprisonment for one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute less than 500 grams of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and 841 (b)(l)(A)(ii), and 2 counts of possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(l)(B)(ii). Smith argues that the district court failed to impose a reasonable sentence, and challenges the district court's consideration of alternative sentences. -
In this case, under our precedent, the district court correctly calculated the guideline range, understood that the guidelines were advisory, considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) as well as Smith's arguments, and ultimately imposed a sentence at the low end of the applicable guideline range. Accordingly, we cannot conclude that his sentence was unreasonable. United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 785 (11th Cir.2005).
AFFIRMED.
. To the extent Smith argues that the district court erred in basing the sentence upon a drug amount that exceeded the jury's verdict, this argument is without merit. United States v. Chau, 426 F.3d 1318, 1323 (11th Cir.2005). Accordingly, we need not address Smith's arguments concerning the district court's alternative sentencing calculations.