Case: 17-13143 Date Filed: 05/01/2018 Page: 1 of 8
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-13143
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:16-cr-00354-WTM-GRS-2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MARLON LASHAWN KING,
a.k.a. Melo,
Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
________________________
(May 1, 2018)
Before MARCUS, ROSENBAUM and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 17-13143 Date Filed: 05/01/2018 Page: 2 of 8
Marlon King appeals his 151-month sentence, imposed at the bottom of his
advisory guidelines range, which the district court imposed after he pled guilty to a
single count of distribution of heroin. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
I.
King was indicted for, among other counts, conspiracy to distribute and to
possess with intent to distribute tetrahydrocannabinol (“THC”) and cocaine,
distribution of cocaine, distribution of heroin, and possession of marijuana. He
pled guilty to the distribution of heroin count, in exchange for the government’s
agreement to dismiss the remaining charges.
In anticipation of sentencing, the probation office prepared a presentence
investigation report (“PSI”). Using the drug equivalency tables in U.S.S.G.
§ 2D1.1, the PSI determined that King was accountable for the equivalent of
319.932 kilograms of marijuana based on the charged offenses, which yielded a
base offense level of 24. The PSI then classified King as a career offender under
U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(b) because he previously had been convicted of two controlled
substance offenses. As a result of this enhancement, King’s base offense level was
32. With a three-level decrease for acceptance of responsibility, King’s total
offense level was 29. Also due to the career offender enhancement, the PSI set
King’s criminal history at a category VI. This resulted in a guidelines range of 151
to 188 months’ imprisonment with a statutory maximum sentence of 20 years.
2
Case: 17-13143 Date Filed: 05/01/2018 Page: 3 of 8
King submitted a memorandum prior to sentencing in which he sought a
downward variance based on his personal history and future goals. At sentencing,
King expressed remorse, and his wife and mother testified that he was a good
father who deserved to be home with his children. King did not object to the PSI,
the facts and calculations of which the district court adopted. The government
argued for a within-guidelines sentence, citing King’s lengthy criminal history.
The district court explained that it had reviewed the PSI, arguments from the
defense (including the memorandum) and the government, King’s allocution, the
testimony of King’s wife and mother, and the factors set forth in
18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a). It imposed a sentenced at the bottom of the applicable guidelines range,
151 months’ imprisonment.
The court explained why it denied King’s request for a downward variance.
The court found that King “represents an ongoing threat to this community” and
that the sentence reflected the need for deterrence and to “protect the public from
further crimes by this defendant.” Doc. 94 at 14-15. 1 The court further stated that
it imposed a sentence at the bottom of the guidelines range because King had no
prior convictions for offenses involving a weapon.
This is King’s appeal.
1
“Doc. #” refers to the numbered entry on the district court’s docket.
3
Case: 17-13143 Date Filed: 05/01/2018 Page: 4 of 8
II.
We review the reasonableness of a sentence under a deferential abuse of
discretion standard, considering the totality of the circumstances and the
sentencing factors set forth in
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Gall v. United States,
552 U.S.
38, 41 (2007). Under § 3553(a), the district court is required to impose a sentence
“sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes” of
§ 3553(a)(2)—the need to reflect the seriousness of the offense; promote respect
for the law; provide just punishment; deter criminal conduct; protect the public
from the defendant’s future criminal conduct; and effectively provide the
defendant with educational or vocational training, medical care, or other
correctional treatment.
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). The court must also consider the
nature and circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the
defendant, the kinds of sentences available, the applicable guidelines range, the
pertinent policy statements of the Sentencing Commission, the need to avoid
unwarranted sentencing disparities, and the need to provide restitution to victims.
Id. § 3553(a)(1), (3)-(7).
Although we do not automatically presume a within-guidelines sentence to
be reasonable, ordinarily we expect it to be. United States v. Asante,
782 F.3d 639,
648 (11th Cir. 2015). That a sentence falls at the low end of the guidelines range
4
Case: 17-13143 Date Filed: 05/01/2018 Page: 5 of 8
and well below the statutory maximum are two indications of reasonableness. See
United States v. Cubero,
754 F.3d 888, 898 (11th Cir. 2014).
The party challenging a sentence bears the burden of proving the sentence is
unreasonable. United States v. Tome,
611 F.3d 1371, 1378 (11th Cir. 2010). A
district court imposes a substantively unreasonable sentence when it fails to afford
consideration to relevant factors that were due significant weight, gives significant
weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or commits a clear error of judgment in
considering the proper factors. United States v. Irey,
612 F.3d 1160, 1189-90 (11th
Cir. 2010) (en banc); see United States v. Crisp,
454 F.3d 1285, 1292 (11th Cir.
2006) (explaining that a sentencing court’s “single-minded[]” focus on one factor
to the detriment of other relevant sentencing factors “is a symptom of an
unreasonable sentence” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Although generally the weight to be accorded any given § 3553(a) factor is a
matter committed to the sound discretion of the district court, United States v.
Williams,
526 F.3d 1312, 1322 (11th Cir. 2008), a district court commits a clear
error of judgment when it “considers the proper factors but balances them
unreasonably” and imposes a sentence that “does not achieve the purposes of
sentencing as stated in § 3553(a),” Irey,
612 F.3d at 1189-90 (internal quotation
marks omitted). We will vacate a sentence if we are “left with the definite and
firm conviction that the district court committed a clear error of judgment in
5
Case: 17-13143 Date Filed: 05/01/2018 Page: 6 of 8
weighing the § 3553(a) factors by arriving at a sentence that lies outside the range
of reasonable sentences dictated by the facts of the case.” Id. at 1190.
III.
King argues that his sentence was substantively unreasonable for two
reasons. First, he contends that the district court placed too much weight on his
criminal history and no weight on his “actual role in the scheme,” distribution of
only 3.68 grams of heroin. Appellant’s Br. at 9. Second, he asserts that his
sentence was disproportionate to that of his codefendant, who, he says, was
convicted of more serious conduct but got a lesser sentence. We take these
arguments in turn.
First, we reject King’s argument that the district court improperly placed too
much weight on his lengthy criminal history and not enough weight on the fact that
the offense for which he was convicted involved a small amount of heroin. King’s
guidelines range was determined not by the probation office’s calculation under the
drug equivalency tables—which took into account offense conduct for which King
was not convicted—but rather by the career offender enhancement, which King
has never contested. The district court’s consideration of the quantity of drugs for
which King could be held accountable, including the amount of drugs in the counts
that were dismissed—a calculation to which King did not object—also was not
improper. See
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1) (permitting the district court to consider in
6
Case: 17-13143 Date Filed: 05/01/2018 Page: 7 of 8
sentencing “the nature and circumstances of the offense”); United States v. Alston,
895 F.2d 1362, 1371 (11th Cir. 1990) (holding that sentencing courts may consider
quantities of drugs charged in counts ultimately dismissed pursuant to a plea
agreement when arriving at an appropriate sentence). Moreover, the district court
was within its discretion to weigh heavily King’s criminal history, and, given the
court’s statements that it considered numerous factors, including King’s allocution
and his family members’ testimony, King cannot demonstrate that the court
focused “single-mindedly” on his criminal history to the detriment of other
relevant sentencing factors. Crisp,
454 F.3d at 1292.
Second, we cannot agree with King that the district court erred in sentencing
him to 151 months’ imprisonment even though his co-defendant received a lesser
sentence. “Disparity between the sentences imposed on co-defendants is generally
not an appropriate basis for relief on appeal.” United States v. Regueiro,
240 F.3d
1321, 1325-26 (11th Cir. 2001). This general rule reflects Congress’s choice to
enact the Sentencing Guidelines “to eliminate disparities in the sentences meted
out to similarly situated defendants” rather than co-defendants in a single case who
may be “culpable in different degrees.” United States v. Chotas,
968 F.2d 1193,
1197 (11th Cir. 1992). “The guidelines, structured to account for relative
culpability and differences in prior records of defendants, demonstrate that the
Sentencing Commission fully anticipated sentencing disparity between defendants
7
Case: 17-13143 Date Filed: 05/01/2018 Page: 8 of 8
involved in the same offense.” Id.; see also
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6) (instructing
sentencing courts to consider “the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities
among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar
conduct”). King’s argument may have had merit if he had demonstrated that his
co-defendant was similarly situated to him in a manner other than simply being
involved in the same offense; however, he has not done so. There is no indication
in the record that King’s co-defendant was categorized as a career offender—the
categorization that drove King’s guidelines range. Indeed, the record demonstrates
that whereas King’s co-defendant cooperated with law enforcement, King failed to
follow through on his agreement to cooperate with investigators. Thus, King has
not shown that the district court erred in imposing a higher sentence in his case
than in his co-defendant’s case.
IV.
King has not met his burden to show that the district court abused its
discretion in imposing his 151-month, bottom-of-the-guidelines sentence. We
therefore affirm.
AFFIRMED.
8
