[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
APRIL 25, 2007
No. 06-14384 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 06-00027-CR-3-RV
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
EUGENE JEROME SMITH,
a.k.a. Sperm,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
_________________________
(As amended 11/19/2007)
(April 25, 2007)
Before DUBINA, CARNES and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Eugene Jerome Smith appeals his sentence of 300-months’ imprisonment for
one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute less than
500 grams of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1) and
841(b)(1)(C), one count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation
of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C) and 18 U.S.C. § 2, and one count of
possession with intent to distribute less than 500 grams of cocaine, in violation of
21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). Smith argues that the district court failed to
impose a reasonable sentence, and challenges the district court’s consideration of
alternative sentences.
In this case, under our precedent, the district court correctly calculated the
guideline range, understood that the guidelines were advisory, considered the
factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) as well as Smith’s arguments, and
ultimately imposed a sentence at the low end of the applicable guideline range.1
Accordingly, we cannot conclude that his sentence was unreasonable. United
States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 785 (11th Cir. 2005).
AFFIRMED.
1
To the extent Smith argues that the district court erred in basing the sentence upon a
drug amount that exceeded the jury’s verdict, this argument is without merit. United States v.
Chau, 426 F.3d 1318, 1323 (11th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, we need not address Smith’s
arguments concerning the district court’s alternative sentencing calculations.
2