Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larrick ROWE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-02-04
Citations: 364 F. App'x 567
Docket Number: No. 09-13536
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larrick ROWE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before CARNES, BARKETT and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 364
Pages: 567–568

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larrick ROWE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-13536
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Feb. 4, 2010.
Donnie Wayne Bethel, Montgomery, AL, for Defendant-Appellant.
A. Clark Morris, Montgomery, AL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Before CARNES, BARKETT and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Larrick Rowe appeals his 84-month sentence, which was at the low-end of his guideline range, for possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Rowe does not appeal his 60-month sentence for possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A), which runs consecutive to his drug conviction. Rowe's 84-month sentence was based on his possession of both crack and powder cocaine.
On appeal, Rowe argues that the prosecutor committed prosecutorial misconduct at sentencing because, although he recited the United States Department of Justice's ("DOJ's") policy supporting the elimination of the crack/powder cocaine disparity in the Sentencing Guidelines, he undermined the DOJ's policy by arguing for a sentence towards the middle of his guideline range. He contends that, as a result, the district court refused to vary below the low-end of his guideline range.
Normally, we review "claims of prosecu-torial conduct de novo." United States v. Merrill, 513 F.3d 1293, 1306 (11th Cir.2008). However, because Rowe failed to object to the prosecutor's statements before the district court, we review "for plain error that is so obvious that failure to correct it would jeopardize the fairness and integrity of the trial." Id. at 1306-07 (quotation omitted). "To establish prose-cutorial misconduct, (1) the remarks must be improper, and (2) the remarks must prejudicially affect the substantial rights of the defendant." Id. at 1307.
Because the prosecutor complied with the DOJ's policy, which required him to inform the district court that the DOJ and the Obama Administration supported the elimination of the crack/powder cocaine disparity in the Sentencing Guidelines, he did not commit prosecutorial misconduct, plainly or otherwise, by arguing for a within-guideline sentence. Accordingly, upon review of the record and consideration of the parties' briefs, we affirm Rowe's 84-month sentence for possession with intent to distribute cocaine.
AFFIRMED.