Opinion ID: 809637
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Davis’s Sentence

Text: At sentencing, the district court explained that it found Davis’s role in the instant offense “disturbing” in light of his prior history of imprisonment for drug offenses. The district court observed that Davis had already been to jail, paroled multiple times, had his parole revoked, went on probation, and then had probation violation warrants issued. The district court stated that Davis’s criminal history and current conduct indicated that Davis had not learned from his experience and that Davis’s prior imprisonments and probation “had no effect on Mr. Davis 5 Case: 12-11598 Date Filed: 10/04/2012 Page: 6 of 7 whatever” and expressed concern that Davis would return to dealing drugs after completing his sentence. After announcing its intention to vary upward, the district court reasoned that a 4-to-10 month sentence would not reflect the seriousness of the offense in light of Davis’s criminal record and that a guidelines sentence would not promote respect for the law, provide just punishment, afford adequate deterrence or protect the public from further crimes by Davis. Davis has not shown that the district court’s decision to impose a 14-month upward variance was an abuse of discretion. The district court’s stated concerns over the seriousness of Davis’s offense, Davis’s criminal history and his risk of recidivism were sufficiently compelling to support the degree of the variance. We find no merit to Davis’s claim that the district court gave disproportionate weight to Davis’s criminal history. Davis’s prior convictions were only one part of the district court’s decision to impose the upward variance. The district court also was concerned that Davis’s resulting shorter prison terms had not deterred him from committing more crimes and that Davis would quickly return to drug dealing if he received yet another short sentence. Davis also argues that his criminal history was already taken into account in calculating his advisory guidelines range and that the court improperly considered his probation violations. However, the district court was not precluded from 6 Case: 12-11598 Date Filed: 10/04/2012 Page: 7 of 7 considering Davis’s criminal history or the existence of his probation violations under the § 3553(a) factors.3 See United States v. Amedeo, 487 F.3d 823, 833 (11th Cir. 2007). Under the totality of the circumstances, we cannot say the district court’s decision to impose a 24-month sentence was unreasonable. AFFIRMED. 3 The district court did not consider the underlying circumstances of those probation violations and in fact noted that it had no other information about them. 7