USA v. Donald Lewis Ross

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JUNE 30, 2010
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 09-16277
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 09-00065-CR-J-34-TEM
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DONALD LEWIS ROSS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(June 30, 2010)
Before TJOFLAT, PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

-- 1 of 3 --

Donald Lewis Ross appeals his sentence of 77 months of imprisonment for
distributing 5 grams or more of cocaine base. Ross argues that his sentence is
unreasonable. We affirm.
Ross pleaded guilty to the distribution charge without the benefit of a plea
agreement. The presentence investigation report described Ross’s criminal history
that included, over a 12-year period, convictions for multiple drug charges,
domestic batteries, illegal possession of a firearm, fleeing and eluding police,
resisting arrest, and driving with a suspended license. With a total offense level of
21 and a criminal history of VI, the report listed a sentencing range between 77 and
96 months of imprisonment. Ross did not object to the presentence report.
At the sentencing hearing, Ross expressed a desire to “rehabilitate [himself]
while incarcerated by getting into vocational and educational skill courses,
attending the drug rehabilitation program and going to the halfway house where
[he could] prepar[e] himself for society.” Ross requested “a sentence no longer
than necessary for [him] to rehabilitate [him]self.” Ross asked the district court to
sentence him between 36 and 48 months of imprisonment.
The district court sentenced Ross to 77 months of imprisonment. The
district court stated that it took “into account [Ross’s] very significant criminal
history,” “the very brief period of time that passed between [Ross’s] three-year
2

-- 2 of 3 --

sentence” for drug and firearms convictions “and his next arrest,” and the time
required for Ross to complete intensive drug treatment. The district court
explained that it “considered five years probably may well have been sufficient,”
but decided “that a [downward] variance was not appropriate . . . and that . . .
sentence was insufficient” to allow Ross “sufficient time in custody to complete –
to get into and complete the 500-hour drug treatment program.”
The district court did not abuse its discretion by sentencing Ross at the low
end of the guideline range. Ross argues that the district court based its sentence on
the time required to complete a drug treatment program, but the district court stated
that it selected a sentence of 77 months “for general deterrence, to convince other
people who know [Ross] not to do this,” to deter Ross from future similar conduct,
to provide a just punishment, and to enable Ross “to complete . . . [his] educational
and vocational goals.” The district court correctly based its sentence in part on
Ross’s rehabilitation because “in determining the particular sentence to be
imposed,” a court is required to consider “the need for the sentence imposed . . . to
provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care,
or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner.” 18 U.S.C. §
3553(a)(2)(D). Ross’s sentence is reasonable.
Ross’s sentence is AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --