USA v. Stembridge

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
DEC 27, 2010
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 10-13257
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 5:09-cr-00041-RS-LB-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff-Appellee,
versus
STACEY STEMBRIDGE,
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(December 27, 2010)
Before BLACK, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Stacey Stembridge appeals his sentence of 87 months of imprisonment for
conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute more than 500

-- 1 of 3 --

grams of cocaine. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(ii). Stembridge argues that his
sentence is unreasonable. We affirm.
Stembridge argues that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because
the district court failed to consider whether he was entitled to a reduction of
sentence for his substantial assistance, but this argument lacks merit. The district
court “may depart from the guidelines . . . [u]pon motion of the government stating
that the defendant has provided substantial assistance,” and the comments to the
provision state that “[s]ubstantial weight should be given to the government’s
evaluation of the extent of the defendant’s assistance.” U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 5K1.1 & cmt. n.3 (2009). The government did not move for
Stembridge to receive a lesser sentence and, when the district court discussed the
matter with the parties, the government stated that Stembridge “did not qualify”
for the reduction because he did not “cooperate[] [until] after [he was] in federal
custody.” The district court determined that a sentence “at the top of the guideline
range was necessary because Stembridge’s “Criminal History Category under-
represent[ed] the seriousness of his criminal history” and that “[a] lower sentence
would not be sufficient.” See United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1194–95 (11th
Cir. 2010) (discussing Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 358, 127 S. Ct. 2456,
2469 (2007)). The district court did not commit a procedural error in sentencing
2

-- 2 of 3 --

Stembridge.
We AFFIRM Stembridge’s sentence.
3

-- 3 of 3 --