USA v. Sherman Puckett

[DO NOT PUBLISH]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: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2 Opinion of the Court 22-13001
Before NEWSOM, G RANT , 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: 2 of 3

-- 2 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.
USCA11 Case: 22-13001 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 07/17/2023 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --