The Eleventh Circuit Just Affirmed a Federal Sentence Four Times the Guideline Range, and the Government Never Asked for It

Your advisory guideline range is 30 to 37 months. You are sentenced to 144 months, consecutive to a state prison term you are already serving. The prosecutor never asked for the increase. On August 11, 2026, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed that sentence in a published decision out of the Middle District of Florida, and the reasoning should change how anyone facing federal charges in this circuit thinks about what a sentencing hearing actually is.

A 30 to 37 month advisory range produced a 144 month sentence, consecutive to a state term. The government never moved for the increase.

Key Takeaways

• The Eleventh Circuit affirmed a 144-month prison sentence against an advisory guideline range of 30 to 37 months, a variance of nearly four times.
• Under 18 U.S.C. 3661, no limitation applies to the information a federal sentencing court may consider about a defendant's background, character, and conduct.
• A district judge may vary upward on the court's own initiative. Nothing in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) requires the government to request an above-guideline sentence.
• Obstruction counts under 18 U.S.C. 1503 carried more sentencing weight than the underlying distribution counts under 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1).
• The decision is published and comes out of a Florida federal district, so it binds every sentencing court in Florida, Georgia, and Alabama.

What Actually Happened

On August 11, 2026, the Eleventh Circuit issued a published opinion in Case No. 25-11171, an appeal from the Middle District of Florida in Jacksonville. A federal jury convicted the defendant on fourteen counts of unlawfully distributing and dispensing controlled substances under 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and five counts of obstruction of justice under 18 U.S.C. 1503(a). The district court had granted a Rule 29 judgment of acquittal on the conspiracy count, so the defense won something at trial. That win did not travel to sentencing.

The presentence report calculated a total offense level of 18 with a criminal history category of II, which produced an advisory range of 30 to 37 months. The calculation included an abuse-of-trust adjustment under USSG 3B1.3 and an obstruction adjustment under USSG 3C1.1. The district judge imposed 144 months, and ordered it to run consecutive to a state sentence the defendant was already serving on an unrelated conviction.

Offense level 18, criminal history category II. The grid said 30 to 37 months. The sentence was 144. Everything that produced that gap sat outside the guideline calculation.

Chief Judge Pryor, writing for the panel, affirmed both the convictions and the sentence. The opinion is short on sympathy and long on discretion, and it is now binding law.

The Guideline Range Is a Starting Point, Not a Forecast

Defense lawyers spend enormous energy on guideline calculations, and they should. Two levels can mean a year. But the range is advisory, and a district judge who is genuinely disturbed by the underlying conduct has considerable room to act on that reaction.

The most consequential part of the opinion is procedural. The court confirmed that a sentencing judge may vary above the range without the government moving for it. There is no requirement that the prosecution ask. A defendant can negotiate the charges, litigate the guidelines, secure the government's agreement to a range, and still walk into a courtroom where the judge has independently concluded that the range understates what happened.

What is useful here is seeing that principle applied to a variance of this magnitude and affirmed on abuse-of-discretion review. Any federal criminal defense attorney advising a client that the government's position caps the exposure is giving advice this opinion does not support.

Where the Exposure Actually Came From

Two statutes drove this outcome. The distribution counts under 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) established the criminal conduct. The obstruction counts under 18 U.S.C. 1503 established the character finding that justified the variance.

That ordering is frequently misunderstood. Clients under investigation treat the substantive offense as the whole case and the paperwork as an administrative problem. Federal judges read it the other way. A defendant who alters records after learning of an investigation has told the court how he responds to accountability, and that finding follows him through every 3553(a) factor.

The practical translation is direct.

"The indictment describes what the government must prove. It does not describe what the judge may consider."— Aaron M. Cohen, AMC Defense Law

The Disparity Argument Did Not Work, and There Is a Reason

On appeal the defense argued unwarranted sentencing disparity under 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(6), pointing to comparable Eleventh Circuit cases where prescriber defendants received 72 months and 41 months. The panel rejected the comparison.

Section 3553(a)(6) targets unwarranted disparities among defendants with similar records found guilty of similar conduct. Appellate courts read those qualifiers strictly. Once a district judge identifies aggravating facts that distinguish the defendant from the proposed comparators, the disparity argument collapses.

Comparator evidence is not worthless. It has to be built in the district court, with actual data, on a record that forecloses the distinctions the judge would otherwise draw. Raising it for the first time in an appellate brief is close to raising nothing.

Mistakes That Produce This Result

Almost every case that ends in a four-times variance contains the same early decisions.

Touching the records after learning of an investigation. This is the single most damaging thing a person under federal investigation can do. It converts a defensible case into an obstruction case, and obstruction is what judges punish.

Five obstruction counts contributed more to the final sentence than fourteen distribution counts. The conduct that follows the investigation often matters more than the conduct that started it.

Talking to agents without counsel. A written report of the interview becomes the government's version of what was said, and any inconsistency later becomes evidence of consciousness of guilt.

Treating a favorable guideline calculation as the ceiling. A negotiated range is a prediction, not a guarantee, and the sentencing judge is not a party to the negotiation.

Waiting for the indictment. Pre-indictment defense work is where federal cases are shaped. Once charges are filed, the range of available outcomes has already narrowed considerably.

Preparing for sentencing after the verdict. Mitigation that is assembled in the three weeks before a sentencing hearing reads like it was assembled in three weeks.

What Effective Defense Work Looks Like After This Decision

Treat sentencing as the primary event from the first client meeting. Most federal cases resolve by plea, and the contested question is almost always the sentence. Federal investigation defense that treats sentencing as a later phase is already behind.

Take obstruction risk seriously at intake.

Assume the judge will read everything. The presentence report, the trial transcript, the state court file, and the victim submissions all reach the bench. A sentencing strategy that depends on the judge not noticing something is not a strategy.

Why the Timing Matters Right Now

Two things make this decision immediately relevant in Florida.

First, it is published, so it is binding precedent rather than persuasive authority. Prosecutors across Florida will cite it, and district judges considering an upward variance now have recent appellate cover.

Second, the amended federal sentencing guidelines take effect November 1, 2026. Anyone with a sentencing date between now and then is already making decisions about timing, and a favorable guideline calculation under the amendments is worth less than it appears if the record supports a variance. The guideline work and the 3553(a) work are the same project.

For anyone under federal investigation in South Florida, the useful question is not what the guideline range will be. It is what the judge will believe about the defendant when the range is announced.

Common Questions

Facing Federal Sentencing or a Federal Investigation in Florida?

AMC Defense Law represents individuals and professionals in federal investigations and prosecutions in the Southern and Middle Districts of Florida and nationwide, including pre-indictment matters, target letter responses, trial, and federal sentencing. The earlier counsel is involved, the more of the record is still within your control. Consultations are confidential.

The variance record gets built in the district court, before the sentence is imposed. Documentation rather than assertion.

If you or your loved ones have been arrested or are under federal investigation in Florida, call Aaron M. Cohen, 24 hours a day to get help. Contact AMC Defense Law for a confidential consultation.

This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship with AMC Defense Law or any of its attorneys. Every case turns on its own facts, and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. If you are under investigation or facing charges, consult a licensed attorney about your specific situation.

About the author: Aaron M. Cohen is the founder of AMC Defense Law, a federal and state criminal defense firm based in Boca Raton, Florida. The firm represents clients in federal investigations and prosecutions involving healthcare fraud, white collar crime, controlled substance and prescribing cases, financial crimes, federal sentencing, and complex federal litigation, in Florida and nationwide.