[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
NOVEMBER 29, 2006
No. 05-16705 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 03-00056-CR-FTM-29-DNF
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JEFFERY ALAN READON,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(November 29, 2006)
Before ANDERSON, BIRCH and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Jeffery Alan Readon appeals his 151-month sentences for conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine, in violation of 21
U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(b)(1)(B); possession with intent to distribute 5 grams or more
of “crack” cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B); and
possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of “crack” cocaine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B). Readon asserts his sentence is
unreasonable because the district court failed to consider the sentencing disparity
between crack and powder cocaine offenses. We conclude Readon’s sentence is
reasonable, and affirm.
Sentences imposed under an advisory Guidelines system are reviewed for
reasonableness. United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738, 765 (2005). The district
court must first correctly calculate the defendant’s Guidelines range, then, using
the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, the court may impose a more severe or
lenient sentence as long as it is reasonable. United States v. Crawford, 407 F.3d
1174, 1179 (11th Cir. 2005). The § 3553(a) factors include the available
sentences, the applicable Guidelines range, the nature and circumstances of the
offense and the defendant’s history and characteristics, and the need for the
sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, and
provide just punishment for the offense. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); United States v.
2
Winingear, 422 F.3d 1241, 1246 (11th Cir. 2005). “Congress’s decision to punish
crack cocaine offenders more severely than powder cocaine offenders is plainly a
policy decision.” United States v. Williams, 456 F.3d 1353, 1367 (11th Cir. 2006).
As “[f]ederal courts are not at liberty to supplant this policy decision,” the district
court may not consider the disparity between crack and powder cocaine in its
consideration of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Id.
Readon does not contest the district court’s calculation of his Guidelines
range, but only argues the district court failed to appreciate its ability to sentence
him below that range. The district court specifically stated the Guidelines were
advisory. Further, it expressly considered the factors Readon asserted as
mitigating evidence. The court’s explanation for Readon’s sentence, which was
within the applicable Guidelines range, evidenced its consideration of § 3553(a)
factors, including the nature and circumstances of the offense, the seriousness of
the offense, just punishment, and the history and characteristics of the defendant.
The district court correctly refused to consider the disparity in sentences between
crack and powder cocaine offenses in determining whether Readon’s sentence was
reasonable, as the crack and powder cocaine disparity is an impermissible
3
sentencing factor. See Williams, 456 F.3d at 1367. We conclude that Readon’s
sentence is reasonable.
AFFIRMED.
4