Court Opinion

ID: 9557014
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 15:00:51.607786+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:19.502455
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-13368    Document: 25-1     Date Filed: 08/21/2023   Page: 1 of 4

                                               [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-13368
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       KENNETH SIZEMORE,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket No. 5:21-cr-00035-TKW-MJF-2
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-13368         Document: 25-1          Date Filed: 08/21/2023          Page: 2 of 4

       2                          Opinion of the Court                         22-13368

       Before LAGOA, BRASHER, and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Kenneth Sizemore appeals his 120-month total sentence for
       one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute meth-
       amphetamine and oxycodone and one count of distribution of
       methamphetamine. Sizemore challenges his total sentence as sub-
       stantively unreasonable because the district court gave excessive
       weight to the seriousness of the offense conduct, considered a
       codefendant’s assumed Guidelines range, and denied his request
       for a further downward variance. After review, we affirm
       Sizemore’s sentence.
               We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence un-
       der a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States,
       552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). A district court abuses its discretion when it
       “(1) fails to afford consideration to relevant factors that were due
       significant weight, (2) gives significant weight to an improper or
       irrelevant factor, or (3) commits a clear error of judgment in con-
       sidering the [18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 1] factors.” United States v. Irey, 612
       F.3d 1160, 1189 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc).

       1 The § 3553(a) factors include (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense

       conduct and the history and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need for
       the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of the offense; (3) the need of
       the sentence imposed to afford adequate deterrence; (4) the need to protect
       the public; (5) the need to provide the defendant with educational or voca-
       tional training or medical care; (6) the kinds of sentences available; (7) the Sen-
       tencing Guidelines range; (8) the pertinent policy statements of the Sentencing
USCA11 Case: 22-13368       Document: 25-1      Date Filed: 08/21/2023      Page: 3 of 4

       22-13368                Opinion of the Court                           3

               Sizemore has not met his burden to show his 120-month to-
       tal sentence is substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Tome,
       611 F.3d 1371, 1378 (11th Cir. 2010) (explaining the party challeng-
       ing the sentence bears the burden of proving that it is unreasonable
       based on the facts of the case and the § 3553(a) factors). The district
       court was within its discretion to weigh the seriousness of the of-
       fense conduct more heavily than his mitigating factors. See United
       States v. Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d 1249, 1254 (11th Cir. 2015) (stating
       a district court must consider all 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors but is
       not required to give all factors equal weight and the decision about
       how much weight to assign a particular sentencing factor is com-
       mitted to the sound discretion of the district court). The district
       court considered Sizemore’s age, remorse, prior criminal history,
       and substantial assistance to the Government in granting him a sen-
       tence below the Guidelines range. See United States v. Hunt, 526 F.3d
       739, 746 (11th Cir. 2008) (stating we expect a sentence within a de-
       fendant’s Guidelines range to be reasonable).
              The district court stated it considered the § 3553(a) factors
       and proceeded to discuss the factors in relation to Sizemore. It de-
       scribed the harm of opioids and the large quantity of drugs distrib-
       uted by Sizemore in analyzing the severity of the offense conduct.
       The district court was permitted to compare Sizemore and his
       Guidelines range to his codefendants, including Johnny Carr, given
       that the § 3553(a) factors include the need to prevent sentencing

       Commission; (9) the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities; and
       (10) the need to provide restitution to victims. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
USCA11 Case: 22-13368      Document: 25-1     Date Filed: 08/21/2023     Page: 4 of 4

       4                      Opinion of the Court                 22-13368

       disparities. Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d at 1254; 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). It
       used the Guidelines range of Carr as its “starting point” in calculat-
       ing Sizemore’s sentence to prevent sentencing disparities, but then
       clariﬁed that it was doing so with respect to where Sizemore would
       have been, sentence-wise, except for the substantial assistance that
       Sizemore provided.
              The district court did not abuse its discretion in weighing the
       aggravating and mitigating factors including the seriousness of the
       crimes and the Guidelines range of a similarly situated codefend-
       ant. Sizemore’s total sentence was not substantively unreasonable.
       Thus, we aﬃrm.
             AFFIRMED.