[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
December 7, 2005
No. 05-12063 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 04-00072-CR-WDO-5
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
STACEY MONTEZ MATHEWS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
_________________________
(December 7, 2005)
Before TJOFLAT, ANDERSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Stacey Montez Mathews appeals his 121-month sentence imposed after he
pled guilty to distributing more than five grams of crack cocaine, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B)(iii). Mathews argues on appeal that the district
court imposed an “excessively harsh” sentence on him even though he was contrite
and apologized to the court for his crime. Mathews also claims that even though
his prior convictions placed him into criminal history category IV, the district court
should have considered more carefully that some of his prior convictions were for
misdemeanor offenses. In advancing his claim, Mathews does not cite to any
provision of the Sentencing Guidelines or to any other authority.
Following the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Booker, 543
U.S. __, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), we review a defendant’s sentence
for reasonableness when the district court has calculated correctly the defendant’s
Guideline range. United States v. Winingear, 422 F.3d 1241, 1244 (11th Cir.
2005). “After the district court has accurately calculated the Guideline range, it
‘may impose a more severe or more lenient sentence’ that we review for
reasonableness.” Id. (quoting United States v. Crawford, 407 F.3d 1174, 1179
(11th Cir. 2005)). In conducting this review, we evaluate whether the sentence
imposed by the district court was reasonable in light of the factors provided at 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a), which include: (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense;
(2) the history and characteristics of the defendant; (3) the need for the sentence
2
imposed to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law,
and to provide just punishment; (4) the need to protect the public; and (5) the
Guideline range. Id. at 1246.
Applying the § 3553(a) factors to this case, we consider that Mathews was
convicted of distributing over 80 grams of crack cocaine. With a criminal history
category of IV, Mathews’s Guideline range was 121 to 151 months, and the district
court sentenced him to the lowest point of that range. Mathews has multiple prior
convictions, including prior convictions for the possession and sale of cocaine. He
also has violated his probation several times by committing additional serious
offenses. Furthermore, we discern nothing in his apology to the court that
mandates a lower sentence. In light of the application of the factors presented at 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a), we conclude that the sentence of the district court was
reasonable. Accordingly, we affirm Mathews’s sentence.
AFFIRMED.
3