Case: 14-13476 Date Filed: 08/28/2015 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-13476
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 5:13-cr-00072-MTT-CHW-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CHADWICK CANTY,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
________________________
(August 28, 2015)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 14-13476 Date Filed: 08/28/2015 Page: 2 of 3
Chadwick Canty appeals his sentence of 72 months of imprisonment
following his plea of guilty to possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug
trafficking offense. 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). Canty argues that his sentence is
procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to explain why it
ordered his sentence to run consecutively to an undischarged state sentence. Canty
also argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district
court departed upward from his advisory guideline range. We affirm.
Canty’s sentence is procedurally reasonable. When the district court has
discretion to order that a sentence run consecutively or concurrently to an
undischarged sentence, it is required to consider the statutory sentencing factors,
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 18 U.S.C. § 3584(b); United States Sentencing Guidelines
Manual § 5G1.3 (Nov. 2013). But the statute for Canty’s offense states that “no
term of imprisonment imposed on a person under this subsection shall run
concurrently with any other term of imprisonment imposed upon the person . . . .”
18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(D). The district court was not required to explain why it
ordered Canty’s federal sentence to run consecutively to his state sentence when
that was mandated by section 924(c)(1)(D).
Canty’s sentence is also substantively reasonable. The district court decided
to depart upward to “reflect the actual seriousness of . . . [three drug sales that
were] dismissed as part of [Canty’s] plea agreement.” See U.S.S.G. § 5K2.21.
2
Case: 14-13476 Date Filed: 08/28/2015 Page: 3 of 3
Canty argues that his sentence was based on his dismissed charges, but the district
court stated that it considered the presentence investigation report, Canty’s
“advisory sentencing range [of 60 months of imprisonment] and the sentencing
factors . . . [to] ma[ke] an individualized assessment based on the facts presented.”
Canty’s presentence report provided a criminal history of IV based on his prior
convictions for obstructing an officer, possessing cocaine with intent to distribute,
and possessing marijuana as an inmate within guard lines. The district court
reasonably determined that an upward departure of 12 months was necessary to
achieve the statutory purposes of sentencing. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). That
Canty’s sentence is well below his maximum statutory penalty of life
imprisonment 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 when it sentenced Canty to 72 months of imprisonment.
We AFFIRM Canty’s sentence.
3