United States v. Chadwick Canty , 615 F. App'x 642 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •            Case: 14-13476   Date Filed: 08/28/2015   Page: 1 of 3
    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    ________________________
    No. 14-13476
    Non-Argument Calendar
    ________________________
    D.C. Docket No. 5:13-cr-00072-MTT-CHW-1
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    CHADWICK CANTY,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Middle District of Georgia
    ________________________
    (August 28, 2015)
    Before WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Case: 14-13476     Date Filed: 08/28/2015    Page: 2 of 3
    Chadwick Canty appeals his sentence of 72 months of imprisonment
    following his plea of guilty to possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug
    trafficking offense. 
    18 U.S.C. § 924
    (c)(1)(A). Canty argues that his sentence is
    procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to explain why it
    ordered his sentence to run consecutively to an undischarged state sentence. Canty
    also argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district
    court departed upward from his advisory guideline range. We affirm.
    Canty’s sentence is procedurally reasonable. When the district court has
    discretion to order that a sentence run consecutively or concurrently to an
    undischarged sentence, it is required to consider the statutory sentencing factors,
    
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a). 
    18 U.S.C. § 3584
    (b); United States Sentencing Guidelines
    Manual § 5G1.3 (Nov. 2013). But the statute for Canty’s offense states that “no
    term of imprisonment imposed on a person under this subsection shall run
    concurrently with any other term of imprisonment imposed upon the person . . . .”
    
    18 U.S.C. § 924
    (c)(1)(D). The district court was not required to explain why it
    ordered Canty’s federal sentence to run consecutively to his state sentence when
    that was mandated by section 924(c)(1)(D).
    Canty’s sentence is also substantively reasonable. The district court decided
    to depart upward to “reflect the actual seriousness of . . . [three drug sales that
    were] dismissed as part of [Canty’s] plea agreement.” See U.S.S.G. § 5K2.21.
    2
    Case: 14-13476     Date Filed: 08/28/2015    Page: 3 of 3
    Canty argues that his sentence was based on his dismissed charges, but the district
    court stated that it considered the presentence investigation report, Canty’s
    “advisory sentencing range [of 60 months of imprisonment] and the sentencing
    factors . . . [to] ma[ke] an individualized assessment based on the facts presented.”
    Canty’s presentence report provided a criminal history of IV based on his prior
    convictions for obstructing an officer, possessing cocaine with intent to distribute,
    and possessing marijuana as an inmate within guard lines. The district court
    reasonably determined that an upward departure of 12 months was necessary to
    achieve the statutory purposes of sentencing. See 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a). That
    Canty’s sentence is well below his maximum statutory penalty of life
    imprisonment suggests that his sentence is reasonable. See United States v.
    Gonzalez, 
    550 F.3d 1319
    , 1324 (11th Cir. 2008). The district court did not abuse its
    discretion when it sentenced Canty to 72 months of imprisonment.
    We AFFIRM Canty’s sentence.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-13476

Citation Numbers: 615 F. App'x 642

Filed Date: 8/28/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023