USA v. Aaron Scarborough

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
NOVEMBER 22, 2011
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 11-10893
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:09-cr-00016-CDL-MSH-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
AARON SCARBOROUGH,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
________________________
(November 22, 2011)
Before EDMONDSON, PRYOR and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

-- 1 of 3 --

Aaron Scarborough appeals his sentence of imprisonment of 125 months
following his plea of guilt to possessing methamphetamine with intent to
distribute, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Scarborough argues that the district court erred
in denying him an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility and that his
sentence is substantively unreasonable. The government responds that
Scarborough’s appeal is barred by the appeal waiver in his written plea agreement,
but the government fails to explain how the record establishes that the appeal
waiver was entered knowingly and voluntarily. United States v. Bushert, 997 F.2d
1343, 1351–52 (11th Cir. 1993). We affirm.
Scarborough argues that the district court clearly erred in denying him an
adjustment for acceptance of responsibility because he pleaded guilty, agreed to
cooperate with the government, and candidly discussed his actions with the district
court, but this argument fails. We review the denial of an adjustment for
acceptance of responsibility for clear error. United States v. Amedeo, 370 F.3d
1305, 1320 (11th Cir. 2004). The district court did not clearly err in determining
that, based on his flight from pretrial supervision and return to criminal conduct
before sentencing, Scarborough was not entitled to an adjustment for acceptance
of responsibility.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

Scarborough also argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable, but
we disagree. The district court did not abuse its discretion in discrediting
Scarborough’s purported acceptance of responsibility and imposing a sentence at
the high end of the guideline range based on the seriousness of Scarborough’s
offense, his significant criminal history, his flight from pretrial supervision, and
his return to criminal activity.
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --