USA v. Arthur Carl Haspel, No. 11-14048 (11th Cir. 2012)
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[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED ________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 11-14048 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT APRIL 10, 2012 JOHN LEY CLERK D.C. Docket No. 2:11-cr-14021-JEM-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ARTHUR CARL HASPEL, Defendant-Appellant. __________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida _________________________ (April 10, 2012) Before HULL, PRYOR and MARTIN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Arthur Haspel appeals his sentence of imprisonment for 87 months following his plea of guilty to 9 counts of knowingly and intentionally distributing and dispensing oxycodone outside the scope of professional practice. 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Haspel argues that his sentence, at the high end of the guideline range, is unreasonable. Haspel argues that the district court failed to consider the statutory factors for sentencing, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), failed to credit expert testimony that Haspel is amenable to treatment for mental illness, and failed to account for Haspel s undischarged sentence for Medicare fraud. Haspel also argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. We affirm. We review the reasonableness of a sentence under a deferential standard of review for abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 128 S. Ct. 586, 591 (2007). We review findings of fact for clear error. United States v. Rothenberg, 610 F.3d 621, 624 (11th Cir. 2010). When a term of imprisonment is imposed on a defendant who is already subject to an undischarged term of imprisonment, the district court has the discretion to decide whether the terms will run concurrently or consecutively. 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a), (b). Haspel s sentence is reasonable. The district court stated that it had considered the relevant sentencing factors, and the district court did not rely on any impermissible factor. Haspel s sentence at the high end of the guideline range is also substantively reasonable. AFFIRMED. 2
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.
