[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FEB 11, 2009
No. 08-13780 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 07-00535-CR-T-26MAP
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ROBERT LEE PHILLIPS,
a.k.a. Big,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(February 11, 2009)
Before CARNES, BARKETT and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Robert Lee Phillips appeals his 188-month sentence imposed for possession
with intent to distribute five or more grams of cocaine base in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(iii). On appeal, Phillips argues that his sentence is
unreasonable because the district court failed to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors when it imposed a sentence at the low end of the career offender guideline
range as determined by U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. The record does not support Phillips’
contention.
At sentencing, the court noted that it had “read [Phillips’s] sentencing
memorandum and request for reasonable sentence.” The court also reviewed
Phillips’s criminal history and stated, “Interesting, he doesn’t have anything in the
juvenile system, he just starts out at 18 stealing a motor vehicle for which he was
not scored because of his age.” (Id. at 8). The court then listed all the convictions
in the PSI that were un-scored and concluded that Phillips was
appropriately classified as a career offender, in my view, after
consulting the statutory factors as well as the advisory guideline
range. The advisory guideline range reasonably fixes the parameters
of a reasonable sentence in this case. So I will give him a guideline
sentence, I will, however, sentence him at the low end of the advisory
range.
The court sentenced Phillips to 188-months imprisonment and 5 years of
supervised release, stating:
After considering the advisory sentencing guideline recommendations
2
and all the factors identified in Title 18 of the United States Code,
Section 3553(a)1 through 7, I will find that the sentence I’ve imposed
complies with the purposes of sentencing set forth in the statute.
The district court did not commit procedural error because it considered the
§ 3553(a) factors and Phillips’s criminal history in its sentencing decision.
Additionally, the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a sentence
at the low end of the career offender guideline range because Phillips’s extensive
criminal history warranted such a sentence.
AFFIRMED.
3