Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stacey STEMBRIDGE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-12-27
Citations: 406 F. App'x 402
Docket Number: No. 10-13257
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stacey STEMBRIDGE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before BLACK, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 406
Pages: 402–402

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stacey STEMBRIDGE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-13257
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Dec. 27, 2010.
Nancy J. Hess, Thomas F. Kirwin, Pamela A. Moine, United States Attorney’s Office, Pensacola, FL, J. Ryan Love, U.S. Attorney, Panama City, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Ryan Thomas Truskoski, Ryan Thomas Truskoski, Attorney at Law, Orlando, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before BLACK, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Stacey Stembridge appeals his sentence of 87 months of imprisonment for conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute more than 500 grams of cocaine. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(l)(B)(ii). Stem-bridge argues that his sentence is unreasonable. We affirm.
Stembridge argues that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to consider whether he was entitled to a reduction of sentence for his substantial assistance, but this argument lacks merit. The district court "may depart from the guidelines . [u]pon motion of the government stating that the defendant has provided substantial assistance," and the comments to the provision state that "[substantial weight should be given to the government's evaluation of the extent of the defendant's assistance." U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5K1.1 & cmt. n. 3 (2009). The government did not move for Stembridge to receive a lesser sentence and, when the district court discussed the matter with the parties, the government stated that Stembridge "did not qualify" for the reduction because he did not "cooperate[ ] [until] after [he was] in federal custody." The district court determined that a sentence at the top of the guideline range was necessary because Stembridge's "Criminal History Category underrepresented] the seriousness of his criminal history" and that "[a] lower sentence would not be sufficient." See United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1194-95 (11th Cir.2010) (discussing Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 358, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2469, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007)). The district court did not commit a procedural error in sentencing Stembridge.
We AFFIRM Stembridge's sentence.