Case: 12-12410 Date Filed: 02/14/2013 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-12410
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 9:11-cr-80161-KLR-4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff–Appellee,
versus
MARK PYFROM,
a.k.a. Mark Pyform,
Defendant–Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(February 14, 2013)
Before WILSON, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 12-12410 Date Filed: 02/14/2013 Page: 2 of 4
Following a jury trial, Mark Pyfrom was convicted of conspiracy to possess
with intent to distribute a controlled substance while on board a vessel subject to
the jurisdiction of the United States, in violation of 46 U.S.C. §§ 70503(a),
70506(a) and (b); and possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance
while on board a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, in violation
of 46 U.S.C. §§ 70503(a), 70506(a). Pyfrom’s convictions stemmed from his role
in an unsuccessful attempt to deliver more than 100 kilograms of marijuana from
the Bahamas to South Florida. At sentencing, Pyfrom faced a guideline range of
63 to 78-months imprisonment based on a total offense level of 26 and a criminal
history category of I.
The district court sentenced Pyfrom to 63-months imprisonment. On appeal,
Pyfrom argues that this sentence is unreasonable. We review the final sentence
imposed by the district court for procedural and substantive reasonableness.
United States v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319, 1323 (11th Cir. 2008).
Pyfrom does not contend, nor is there any indication, that the district court
committed a procedural error in determining his sentence. See id. (“A sentence
may be procedurally unreasonable if the district court improperly calculates the
Guidelines range, treats the Guidelines as mandatory rather than advisory, fails to
consider the appropriate statutory factors, selects a sentence based on clearly
erroneous facts, or fails to adequately explain the chosen sentence.”). Rather,
2
Case: 12-12410 Date Filed: 02/14/2013 Page: 3 of 4
Pyfrom claims that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district
court failed to adequately consider whether his “ailing medical condition or his
status as an alien” warranted a variance below his guideline range.
We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence under a deferential
abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 128 S. Ct.
586, 691 (2007). In determining whether a sentence is substantively reasonable,
we are guided by the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). United States v.
Winingear, 422 F.3d 1241, 1246 (11th Cir. 2005). “These factors include the
available sentences, the applicable Guideline range, the nature and circumstances
of the offense, and the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the
offense, promote respect for the law, provide just punishment for the offense, and
provide the defendant with needed medical care.” Id. (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)).
“[W]hen the district court imposes a sentence within the advisory Guidelines
range, we ordinarily will expect that choice to be a reasonable one.” United States
v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir. 2005).
We are not persuaded by Pyfrom’s argument that his sentence is
substantively unreasonable because the district court failed to deviate below his
guideline range based on his medical condition or his status as an alien. First, the
record is clear that the district court took each of these factors into consideration
when arriving at its sentencing determination. Second, the record is equally clear
3
Case: 12-12410 Date Filed: 02/14/2013 Page: 4 of 4
that the district court also considered other § 3553(a) factors, such as Pyfrom’s
offense conduct, his presentence report, his sentencing guidelines, as well as his
family obligations. Finally, in arriving at its determination, the district court took
into consideration Pyfrom’s express request that, based on these factors, he receive
a low-end guideline sentence of “63 months.”
In sum, nothing in this record suggests that Pyfrom’s 63-month sentence, at
the low end of his guideline range, was unreasonable. See Talley, 431 F.3d at 788.
The district court, therefore, did not abuse its discretion and Pyfrom’s sentence is
AFFIRMED.
4