USA v. Arthur Carl Haspel

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
APRIL 10, 2012
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 11-14048
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:11-cr-14021-JEM-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ARTHUR CARL HASPEL,
Defendant-Appellant.
__________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(April 10, 2012)
Before HULL, PRYOR and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Arthur Haspel appeals his sentence of imprisonment for 87 months
following his plea of guilty to 9 counts of knowingly and intentionally distributing

-- 1 of 2 --

and dispensing oxycodone outside the scope of professional practice. 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1). Haspel argues that his sentence, at the high end of the guideline
range, is unreasonable. Haspel argues that the district court failed to consider the
statutory factors for sentencing, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), failed to credit expert
testimony that Haspel is amenable to treatment for mental illness, and failed to
account for Haspel’s undischarged sentence for Medicare fraud. Haspel also
argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. We affirm.
We review the reasonableness of a sentence under a deferential standard of
review for abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 128 S. Ct.
586, 591 (2007). We review findings of fact for clear error. United States v.
Rothenberg, 610 F.3d 621, 624 (11th Cir. 2010). When “a term of imprisonment
is imposed on a defendant who is already subject to an undischarged term of
imprisonment,” the district court has the discretion to decide whether the terms
will run concurrently or consecutively. 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a), (b).
Haspel’s sentence is reasonable. The district court stated that it had
considered the relevant sentencing factors, and the district court did not rely on
any impermissible factor. Haspel’s sentence at the high end of the guideline range
is also substantively reasonable.
AFFIRMED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --