Case ID: f-appx_240/html/0859-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Christopher TURK, a.k.a. Chris Turk, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 07-10660
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    July 23, 2007.
    
      Scott Chandler Huggins, Adams, Hemingway & Wilson, LLP, Macon, GA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Lisa Wilson Tarvin, Amy Levin Weil, U.S. Attorney Office, Atlanta, GA, Dean S. Daskel, Columbus, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Before DUBINA, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Appellant James Christopher Turk appeals the district court’s imposition of 24 months incarceration upon revocation of his supervised release. Turk argues that the above-guideline range sentence is unreasonable.

A district court’s decision to exceed the advisory sentencing range in Chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines, U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4, is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Silva, 443 F.3d 795, 798 (11th Cir.2006) (affirming imposition of 24 months incarceration where the guidelines advised 3 to 9 months) (revoking sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)). We review the sentence imposed upon the revocation of supervised release for reasonableness. United States v. Sweeting, 437 F.3d 1105, 1106-07 (11th Cir.2006).

Section 3583 of Title 18 provides that a district court may revoke a term of supervised release and impose a sentence of imprisonment for the violation after considering factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B)-(D), and (a)(4)-(7). 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). The term imposed cannot exceed the statutory maximum. See Sweeting, 437 F.3d at 1107. However, revocation of supervised release is mandatory if, among other things, the defendant possesses a controlled substance in violation of the conditions of supervised release. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g)(1). Additionally, consideration of rehabilitative needs or the other § 3553(a) factors is neither required nor prohibited when revocation of supervised release is mandatory under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g). United States v. Bromi, 224 F.3d 1237, 1241-42 (11th Cir.2000) (affirming imposition of 24 months incarceration where guidelines advised 11 months).

For a Class A felony, the district court may not sentence a defendant for more than five years in prison. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(b)(1). Chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines addresses violations of supervised release and recommends a sentencing range of 3 to 9 months for a Grade C violation with a criminal history category of I. U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4. We have consistently held that the policy statements of Chapter 7 are merely advisory and not binding. United States v. Aguillard, 217 F.3d 1319, 1320 (11th Cir.2000) (affirming imposition of 24 months incarceration where the guidelines advised 3 to 9 months).

Considering Turk’s history and his violations of the conditions of his supervised release, we conclude from the record that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a sentence that exceeded the recommended guideline-range, and that the ultimate sentence was reasonable. Accordingly, we affirm Turk’s sentence.

AFFIRMED.