United States v. Phillip Mikle , 582 F. App'x 855 ( 2014 )

Case: 14-11018 Date Filed: 11/14/2014 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-11018
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cr-20420-JAG-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
PHILLIP MIKLE,
Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(November 14, 2014)
Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 14-11018 Date Filed: 11/14/2014 Page: 2 of 4
Phillip Mikle appeals his conviction and 240-month sentence imposed after
a jury convicted him of possession with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine
base. After careful review, we affirm both his conviction and his sentence.
Mikle first argues that, due to inconsistencies between the police officers’
trial testimony and police reports, the evidence was insufficient to establish his
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 1 We conclude sufficient evidence supported
Mikle’s conviction despite the alleged inconsistencies. Issues about conflicting
testimony are credibility issues for the jury to resolve, United States v. Moore, 525
F.3d 1033, 1049 (11th Cir. 2008), and we presume the jury resolved all credibility
issues in favor of its verdict, United States v. Taylor, 480 F.3d 1025, 1026 (11th
Cir. 2007). Here, the jury convicted Mikle and therefore found the officers’ trial
testimony to be credible despite any inconsistencies with the police reports.
Sufficient evidence supported every element of the charge, and the jury reasonably
concluded Mikle was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We accordingly affirm
Mikle’s conviction.
Mikle also argues his sentence was procedurally and substantively
unreasonable.2 Mikle contends the sentence was procedurally unreasonable
1
This Court reviews the sufficiency of evidence to support a defendant’s conviction de
novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government. United States v.
Taylor, 480 F.3d 1025, 1026 (11th Cir. 2007).
2
This Court reviews a sentence for procedural and substantive reasonableness under an
abuse of discretion standard. United States v. Wetherald, 636 F.3d 1315, 1320 (11th Cir. 2011).
2
Case: 14-11018 Date Filed: 11/14/2014 Page: 3 of 4
because the district court did not adequately explain its reasoning for declining to
grant a downward variance. This argument lacks merit. The record shows the
district court considered the parties’ arguments and issued a reasoned basis for its
decision to impose a sentence within the Guidelines range. See Rita v. United
States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007) (“[W]hen a judge decides simply to apply the
Guidelines to a particular case, doing so will not necessarily require lengthy
explanation.”); United States v. Livesay, 525 F.3d 1081, 1090 (11th Cir. 2008)
(holding “sentencing judge is not required” to explicitly consider or discuss each of
the sentencing factors). Mickle’s sentence was therefore procedurally reasonable.
Mikle opines that his sentence was substantively unreasonable because the
length of his conviction—240 months—is excessive in light of the crime for which
he was convicted: the possession of 1.4 grams of cocaine base and 0.8 grams of
cocaine powder. We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion by
imposing the 240-month sentence. The district did not act unreasonably by
attaching great weight to the Guidelines’ treatment of Mikle’s criminal history and
less weight to the nature and circumstances of his offense. See United States v.
Hunt, 526 F.3d 739, 746 (11th Cir. 2008) (“[W]e ordinarily . . . expect a sentence
with the Guidelines range to be reasonable.”) (quotation omitted); United States v.
The party who challenges the sentence bears the burden to show the sentence is unreasonable.
United States v. Tome, 611 F.3d 1371, 1378 (11th Cir. 2010).
3
Case: 14-11018 Date Filed: 11/14/2014 Page: 4 of 4
Clay, 483 F.3d 739, 743 (11th Cir. 2007) (“The weight to be accorded any given
§3553(a) factor is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the district
court. . . .”) (quotation omitted). Given his extensive criminal history, Mikle
cannot show the district court afforded unjustified weight to this factor.
In light of the foregoing reasons, we affirm Mikle’s conviction and his
sentence.
AFFIRMED.
4