Court Opinion

ID: 9409228
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-17 14:00:39.479178+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:49.641852
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-13001    Document: 29-1     Date Filed: 07/17/2023   Page: 1 of 3

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-13001
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       SHERMAN MICHAEL PUCKETT,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket No. 8:19-cr-00285-WFJ-AEP-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-13001      Document: 29-1      Date Filed: 07/17/2023     Page: 2 of 3

       2                      Opinion of the Court                  22-13001

       Before NEWSOM, GRANT, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Sherman Michael Puckett appeals his 300-month total
       sentence for one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to
       distribute controlled substances and one count of obstruction of
       justice. Puckett challenges his total sentence as substantively
       unreasonable and argues that the district court gave excessive
       weight to the seriousness, nature, and circumstances of the offense
       conduct, particularly by considering the victim impact and the
       extreme conduct surrounding a related death, and denied his
       request for a downward variance.
               We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence
       under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United
       States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The party challenging the sentence
       bears the burden of proving that it is unreasonable. United States v.
       Tome, 611 F.3d 1371, 1378 (11th Cir. 2010).
              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 considering the
       proper factors.” United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1190 (11th Cir.
       2010) (en banc). A district court must consider all 18 U.S.C.
       § 3553(a) factors but is not required to give all factors equal weight.
       United States v. Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d 1249, 1254 (11th Cir. 2015).
       The decision about how much weight to assign a particular
USCA11 Case: 22-13001      Document: 29-1       Date Filed: 07/17/2023     Page: 3 of 3

       22-13001                Opinion of the Court                          3

       sentencing factor is committed to the sound discretion of the
       district court. Id. Additionally, the sentencing court may vary
       upward based upon uncharged conduct, as it relates to the history
       and characteristics of the defendant, and the need to promote
       respect for the law, aﬀord adequate deterrence, and protect the
       public. See United States v. Overstreet, 713 F.3d 627, 637-38 (11th Cir.
       2013) (holding that the district court was “entitled to consider the
       murder in deciding whether to vary outside the guideline range”).
               Here, we conclude that Puckett’s 300-month total sentence
       is not substantively unreasonable, because the district court did not
       abuse its discretion in weighing the aggravating factors including
       the seriousness, nature, and circumstances of the crimes. Moreo-
       ver, the district court was permitted to consider Puckett’s conduct
       as it related to the uncharged death and vary upward. The district
       court stated that it considered the § 3553(a) factors, and it provided
       its reasons for Puckett’s upward variance. It based his total sen-
       tence on his continued sales of drugs, his failure to stop after the
       arrests and searches, the need for speciﬁc deterrence, public safety
       concerns, the seriousness of the oﬀense behavior and the oﬀender
       history, avoidance of unwarranted disparities, and his conduct The
       court added its reasoning was “mostly speciﬁc deterrence.” Be-
       cause the district court explained and justiﬁed its variance, which
       relied on proper grounds, it did not abuse its discretion.
              Thus, we aﬃrm.
              AFFIRMED.