USA v. Stacey Stembridge, No. 10-13257 (11th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS U.S. ________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 10-13257 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ DEC 27, 2010 JOHN LEY CLERK 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 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 underrepresent[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 Stembridge. We AFFIRM Stembridge s sentence. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
