conspiracy he was involved. Thus, Davis argues that the district'court erred by applying the cross-referencing provisions in U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(c). He also asserts that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court imposed a sentence that was greater than nece (11th Cir.2006) (same). Accordingly, we affirm Williams’s sentence of 23 years’ imprisonment. Y. CONCLUSION We affirm the judgments of conviction for defendants Johnson, Davis, and Williams. We conclude that Davis’s and Williams’s sentences are procedurally and substantively reasonable, and we affirm these sentences as well. AFFIRMED. 1 . Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). 2 . North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37-38, 91 S.Ct. 160, 167-68, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970) (<HOLDING>). 3 . See Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492,
holding that counsel was not ineffective in failing to request a charge on the lesserincluded offense when the evidence showed either the commission of the completed offense as charged or the commission of no offense such that the defendant was not entitled to a charge on the lesser offense holding that the trial court did not err by allowing the prosecution to question prospective jurors regarding their ability to announce a death sentence in an appropriate case holding that the trial court did not err by allowing defendant to knowingly and voluntarily enter a plea to a lesser offense to avoid a possible death sentence even though the evidence of guilt as to the murder charge was strong holding that trial court did not err in refusing to give charge because plaintiff failed to demonstrate that his requested charge was tailored to the evidence holding that trial court did not err