USA v. Aaron Scarborough, No. 11-10893 (11th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 11-10893 NOVEMBER 22, 2011 Non-Argument Calendar JOHN LEY ________________________ CLERK 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: 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. ยง 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 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
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.
