[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-10087 JULY 12, 2010
Non-Argument Calendar JOHN LEY
CLERK
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:09-cr-20369-AJ-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JAMES WALKER,
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(July 12, 2010)
Before TJOFLAT, BARKETT and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
James Walker appeals his sentence of 36 months’ imprisonment, imposed
after he pled guilty to 1 count of conspiracy to distribute oxycodone, in violation
of 21 U.S.C. § 846. On appeal, he argues that the district court improperly
enhanced his sentence for possession of a weapon, pursuant to U.S.S.G.
§ 2D1.1(b)(1), and denied him safety-valve relief, pursuant to U.S.S.G.
§ 5C1.2(a)(2), but concedes that any alleged error is insufficient for reversal
because the court stated that it would still impose the same sentence regardless of
its resolution of those guideline issues. Walker further argues that his sentence is
substantively unreasonable. We review a defendant’s sentence for reasonableness.
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 264, 125 S.Ct. 738, 767, 160 L.Ed.2d 621
(2005); United States v. Crawford, 407 F.3d 1174, 1179 (11th Cir. 2005).
Walker has not satisfied his burden of establishing that his sentence was
unreasonable. First, he concedes that the district court stated that it would have
imposed a 36-month sentence regardless of the § 2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement and
§ 5C1.2 safety-valve relief. Even if Walker’s objections had been granted, his
guideline range would have been 37 to 46 months’ imprisonment, so his 36-month
sentence was still below the applicable guideline range. Thus, any alleged
2
guideline errors did not affect his sentence.1 Furthermore, he failed to show that
his sentence was substantively unreasonable, as the district court stated that it had
considered the § 3553(a) factors and imposed a sentence that was sufficient, but
not greater than necessary, to satisfy the requirements of § 3553(a). The court also
reviewed Walker’s criminal history, discussed the need for deterrence, considered
the advisory guideline range, and stated that it wanted to take into account
Walker’s age, health, family obligations, and lack of recidivism, all of which are
proper considerations under § 3553(a). Accordingly, we hold that Walker’s
sentence was reasonable and we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
1
Walker’s claims also fail on the merits, as the district court properly applied the
weapons enhancement and denied safety-valve relief.
3