United States v. Jerry Wayne Guy, III ( 2015 )

Case: 15-11608 Date Filed: 11/23/2015 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-11608
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 5:14-cr-00009-WTM-RSB-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JERRY WAYNE GUY, III,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
________________________
(November 23, 2015)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 15-11608 Date Filed: 11/23/2015 Page: 2 of 4
Jerry Guy, III, appeals his sentence of 188 months of imprisonment,
following his plea of guilty to possessing with intent to distribute
methamphetamine. 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). Guy challenges the
constitutionality of the career-offender guideline, United States Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 4B1.1 (Nov. 2014), and the substantive reasonableness of his
sentence. We affirm.
Guy makes two challenges to the constitutionality of the career-offender
guideline, both of which fail. Guy argues that the career offender provisions violate
his right to due process and equal protection under the Fifth Amendment, but that
argument is foreclosed by United States v. Brant, 62 F.3d 367 (11th Cir. 1995),
where we held that “[t]he career offender scheme of using a defendant’s criminal
record in considering both his offense level and his criminal history under the
Sentencing Guidelines bears a rational relationship to a legitimate governmental
purpose—‘to prevent repeat offenders from continuing to victimize society.’” Id. at
368 (quoting United States v. Johns, 984 F.2d 1162, 1164 (11th Cir. 1993)). Guy
also argues that the “imposition of a draconian mandatory sentence” under the
guideline constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth
Amendment, but we have held that a defendant, like Guy, who is sentenced within
the statutory limits cannot make the threshold showing that his sentence is grossly
disproportionate to his offense, see United States v. Johnson, 451 F.3d 1239, 1243
2
Case: 15-11608 Date Filed: 11/23/2015 Page: 3 of 4
(11th Cir. 2006). Guy was sentenced at the low end of his advisory guideline
range, which was unaffected by his classification as a career offender. Guy
amassed 22 criminal history points, and with a base offense level of 30 for
possessing between 50 and 150 grams of methamphetamine, U.S.S.G.
§ 2D1.1(c)(5), that was increased by two levels for possessing a firearm, id.
§ 2D1.1(b)(1), and another two levels for distributing a controlled substance as he
entered a correctional facility, id. § 2D1.1(b)(4), he had an offense level of 34 and
a criminal history category of IV, which was identical to what he faced as a career
offender with two prior convictions for felony offenses, id. § 4B1.1(a).
Guy’s sentence of 188 months of imprisonment is substantively reasonable.
Guy was arrested after officers discovered in his vehicle a stolen .38 caliber
revolver, a digital scale, a straw containing methamphetamine, and more than $600
dollars, and after arriving at jail, Guy transferred 121.88 grams of
methamphetamine to another inmate. Guy’s drug offense, as the district court
stated, was his “third drug-related conviction in 2 years and his sixteenth
conviction in 9 years” and “occurred 3 months after [he] was paroled for two prior
drug-related convictions.” And Guy had an extensive criminal background that
included three prior convictions for possessing, selling, and manufacturing illegal
drugs; six convictions that involved violent assaults and batteries of girlfriends and
mistreating a six-year-old boy; and two convictions for driving under the influence.
3
Case: 15-11608 Date Filed: 11/23/2015 Page: 4 of 4
The district court reasonably determined that “all of the[] aggravating factors
[were] taken into account by the guideline calculation” and “that a sentence at the
bottom of [Guy’s] advisory guideline range” of 188 to 235 months of
imprisonment satisfied the statutory purposes of sentencing. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a); United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1190–91 (11th Cir. 2010) (en
banc). That Guy’s sentence is within the advisory range and far less than his
maximum statutory penalty of 20 years of imprisonment also suggests that his
sentence is reasonable. See United States v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319, 1324 (11th
Cir. 2008). The district court did not abuse its discretion.
We AFFIRM Guy’s sentence.
4