Full Opinion

USCA11 Case: 25-12159 Document: 49-1 Date Filed: 10/23/2026 Page: 1 of 6 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-12159 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus EMMANUEL OTHELLO, a.k.a. Mono, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:09-cr-20264-DMM-2 ____________________ Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH, and WILSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Defendant-Appellant Emmanuel Othello appeals his sen- tence of 96 months’ imprisonment for three counts of conspiracy USCA11 Case: 25-12159 Document: 49-1 Date Filed: 10/23/2026 Page: 2 of 6 2 Opinion of the Court 25-12159 to possess with intent to distribute cocaine under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B). On appeal, Othello argues that his sentence is both procedurally unreasonable and substantively unreasonable. After careful review, we affirm. I. Othello argues that his sentence is procedurally unreasona- ble because, by imposing a sentence to minimize sentencing dis- parities with his codefendants, the district court misapplied 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6). But Othello did not object to the procedural reasonableness of the sentence at the time of sentencing, so we re- view his challenge on appeal for plain error. United States v. Van- dergrift, 754 F.3d 1303, 1307 (11th Cir. 2014). Plain error occurs where: (1) there is an error; (2) that is plain; (3) that affects the de- fendant’s substantial rights; and (4) seriously affected the fairness of the judicial proceedings. United States v. Ramirez-Flores, 743 F.3d 816, 822 (11th Cir. 2014). The district court commits a procedural error if it fails to calculate the guidelines range, treats the guidelines as mandatory, fails to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selects a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or fails to adequately explain the sentence. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). A district court satisfies the requirement of considering the § 3553(a) factors by acknowl- edging that it has considered them. United States v. Turner, 474 F.3d 1265, 1281 (11th Cir. 2007). And the court need not give a long explanation for imposing a sentence within the guidelines range unless a party argues that a sentence within the guideline range is USCA11 Case: 25-12159 Document: 49-1 Date Filed: 10/23/2026 Page: 3 of 6 25-12159 Opinion of the Court 3 inappropriate based on the § 3553(a) factors. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 357 (2007). Upon review of the record, the district court expressly said that it considered the parties’ statements; the PSI, which included the guideline calculations; and the § 3553(a) factors. The court acknowledged Othello’s individual circumstances, including his difficult background and the support from his family, but then the court explained how the sentence should reflect the nature and cir- cumstances of the offense and adequate punishment for the crime. Thus, the court satisfied the procedural requirement that it had considered the § 3553(a) factors1 and explained its sentence. II. Othello argues that his sentence is substantively unreasona- ble because the district court misapplied § 3553(a)(6), gave signifi- cant weight to an improper factor, and imposed a sentence greater than necessary to comply with the § 3553(a) factors. 1 Othello disputes how the court considered the § 3553(a) factors, especially the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities under § 3553(a)(6). Othello asserts that by misapplying this legal standard—minimizing the sen- tencing disparities between Othello and his codefendants—the court proce- durally erred. Othello’s argument misses the mark. When considering the appropriate sentence, the court found that Othello’s sentence must reflect the nature of the crime and be an adequate punishment, so it did not rely exclu- sively on the sentencing disparity factor. Instead, the court considered the PSI, the agreed upon guideline range, and the parties’ § 3553(a) arguments as re- quired. Thus, the district court did not err in its consideration of § 3553(a)(6). USCA11 Case: 25-12159 Document: 49-1 Date Filed: 10/23/2026 Page: 4 of 6 4 Opinion of the Court 25-12159 When reviewing for substantive reasonableness, we con- sider the totality of the circumstances under a deferential abuse-of- discretion standard. Gall, 552 U.S. at 41. A district court abuses its discretion and imposes a substantively unreasonable sentence only if it “(1) fails to afford consideration to relevant factors that were due significant weight, (2) gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or (3) commits a clear error of judgment in considering the proper factors.” United States v. Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d 1249, 1256 (11th Cir. 2015) (quotation marks omitted). Under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), a district court’s sentence must be sufficient, but not greater than necessary to achieve the goals of sentencing, which include: reflecting the seriousness of the offense, promoting respect for the law, providing just punishment, deter- ring future criminal conduct, protecting the public, and providing the defendant with any needed training or treatment. The district court must also consider the nature and circumstances of the of- fense, the defendant’s history and characteristics, the kinds of sen- tences available, the Sentencing Guidelines, any pertinent public policy statement, the need to avoid unwarranted sentence dispari- ties among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct, and the need to provide restitution to any victims. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). “A well-founded claim of disparity, however, assumes that apples are being compared to apples,” such as defendants who both plead guilty to the same offense. United States v. Docampo, 573 F.3d 1091, 1101 (11th Cir. 2009) (quotation marks omitted). A district USCA11 Case: 25-12159 Document: 49-1 Date Filed: 10/23/2026 Page: 5 of 6 25-12159 Opinion of the Court 5 court “should not draw comparisons to cases involving defendants who were convicted of less serious offenses, pleaded guilty, or who lacked extensive criminal histories,” if those things are not true of the defendant. United States v. Jayyousi, 657 F.3d 1085, 1118 (11th Cir. 2011). The weight given to any specific § 3553(a) factor is “commit- ted to the sound discretion of the district court.” United States v. Riley, 995 F.3d 1272, 1279 (11th Cir. 2021). The district court does not have to give all the factors equal weight and is given discretion to attach great weight to one factor over another. Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d at 1254. The party challenging the sentence bears the bur- den of establishing that it is unreasonable based on the facts of the case and the § 3553(a) factors. United States v. Tome, 611 F.3d 1371, 1378 (11th Cir. 2010). Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion in sen- tencing Othello to a 96-month sentence. First, Othello’s guideline range was 78-97 months, 2 so his 96-month sentence was within the guidelines range. And a sentence within the guidelines range is generally reasonable. See United States v. Osorto, 995 F.3d 801, 823 (11th Cir. 2021). Second, Othello’s 96-month sentence was below 2 This is the guideline range that the parties agreed to when Othello signed his plea agreement. But without the plea agreement, Othello would have been eligible for two enhancements: a 2-level firearm enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) and a 4-level aggravating role enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, resulting in a guideline range of 151-188 months. USCA11 Case: 25-12159 Document: 49-1 Date Filed: 10/23/2026 Page: 6 of 6 6 Opinion of the Court 25-12159 the statutory maximum of 40 years (480 months), which is another indicator of a reasonable sentence. Id. Third, the district court was within its discretion to consider the need to avoid sentencing disparities between Othello and his codefendants. Othello and his codefendants committed similar conduct—conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine. There is evidence in the record illustrating how the nature of Othello’s of- fense is similar to those who received the longer sentences, such as possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking, playing a major role in the conspiracy, and the amount of cocaine for which Othello is held responsible. And the court recognized that some codefendants had career offender enhancements, which resulted in high sentences. While the court talked about avoiding sentencing disparities, it did not improperly rely on it as the single factor in determining Othello’s sentence. See United States v. Kuhlman, 711 F.3d 1321, 1327 (11th Cir. 2013). Instead, the court also gave the most weight to the nature of the crime and just punishment, which is within its discretion. Id. Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it imposed a 96-month sentence.3 AFFIRMED. 3 Othello argues that the district court improperly considered the benefits that Othello received with his plea agreement. The record shows only that the district court used the plea agreement to explain that had it not been for that agreement, Othello’s guideline range would have been much larger. The court did not abuse its discretion in its discussion of the plea agreement when talking about Othello’s sentence.