United States v. Kevin Bristol Patterson
713 F. App'x 916
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Kevin Bristol Patterson appealed his federal sentences for conspiracy and multiple counts of distribution/possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and heroin.
- At sentencing, the district court converted controlled substances to marijuana equivalents under the Sentencing Guidelines, using the equivalence for “ice” rather than for methamphetamine.
- The Guidelines treat 1 g of “ice” (≥80% d‑methamphetamine hydrochloride) as equal to 20 kg marijuana; 1 g methamphetamine equals 2 kg marijuana.
- Patterson argued the court erred by using the “ice” equivalence and that his sentence was substantively unreasonable.
- The district court found Patterson was a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(b), producing a higher offense level based on a statutory maximum of life.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding any error in equivalence usage was harmless because the career‑offender offense level controlled, and the sentence was not substantively unreasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court erred by using the marijuana equivalence for “ice” rather than methamphetamine to calculate base offense level | Patterson: court misapplied Guidelines by equating drugs to "ice" instead of methamphetamine, inflating base level | Government/District Court: even if equivalence was wrong, Patterson is a career offender and §4B1.1 produced the controlling, higher offense level | No reversible error; any Guidelines‑calculation error was harmless because career‑offender offense level controlled |
| Whether the sentence was substantively unreasonable under 18 U.S.C. §3553(a) factors | Patterson: sentence was substantively unreasonable (too severe) | Government: district court reasonably weighed offense nature, criminal history, addiction, and considered §3553(a) factors | Sentence affirmed as not substantively unreasonable; district court did not rely on impermissible factors or fail to consider relevant factors |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Smith, 480 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2007) (standards for reviewing Guidelines interpretation and factual findings)
- United States v. Scott, 441 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 2006) (harmless‑error standard for Guidelines misapplications)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for appellate review of sentences)
- United States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179 (11th Cir. 2008) (burden to show sentence substantively unreasonable and related principles)
- United States v. Clay, 483 F.3d 739 (11th Cir. 2007) (district court’s discretion in weighting §3553(a) factors)
- United States v. Snipes, 611 F.3d 855 (11th Cir. 2010) (no requirement to address every mitigating factor on record)
- United States v. Valnor, 451 F.3d 744 (11th Cir. 2006) (comparison to statutory maximum as an indicium of reasonableness)