
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vernon Marcus COLEMAN, a.k.a. Wu, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-10620
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    Sept. 21, 2011.
    Robert C. McBurney, Cassandra Schansman, Lawrence R. Sommerfeld, Sally Yates, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Christopher W. Adams, The Law Office of Christopher W. Adams, PC, Charleston, SC, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before WILSON, PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Vernon Coleman appeals his sentence of 87 months of imprisonment for conspiring to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine. 21 U.S.C. § 846. Coleman argues that his sentence is unreasonable. We affirm.

Coleman’s sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable. Coleman facilitated the sale of more than 150 kilograms of cocaine by the Black Mafia Family to a drug dealer in Birmingham, Alabama. After Coleman learned that he had been indicted, he assumed a false identity and evaded arrest for at least two years. Although the district court was “not too sure that [it] agreefd] with” the arrangement between the United States and Coleman to award him an adjustment for a minor role in the conspiracy based on his background as described in the presentence investigation report, the district court reduced Coleman’s offense level and then correctly calculated Coleman’s advisory guideline range of 70 to 87 months of imprisonment. The district court reasonably determined that a sentence at the high end of the guideline range “appropriately reflected] the seriousness of [Coleman’s] criminal conduct,” and took “into account the very large amount of drug distribution that [he] was involved in, his obvious knowledge of the very widespread nature of the drug conspiracy,” and the “huge amounts of drugs [that] were being distributed by [the] group.” Coleman argues that there is an unwarranted disparity between his sentence of 87 months of imprisonment and the 64-month sentence that the district court imposed on his codefendant, Barima McKnight, but the two men were not similarly situated, see United States v. Spoerke, 568 F.3d 1236, 1252 (11th Cir.2009). In contrast to Coleman’s role as a facilitator and intermediary between distributors of large amounts of cocaine, McKnight loaded and unloaded cocaine and money and counted money. The district court did not abuse its discretion.

We AFFIRM Coleman’s sentence.  