Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-14-13937/USCOURTS-ca11-14-13937-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Arnold Knight
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-13937

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:07-cr-00242-CG-B-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ARNOLD KNIGHT,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Alabama

________________________

(March 31, 2015)

Before HULL, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

USCA11 Case: 14-13937 Date Filed: 03/31/2015 Page: 1 of 8
2

Arnold Knight appeals his 24-month sentence, imposed following revocation 

of his term of supervised release and ordered to run consecutively to his state 

sentence of 30 years’ imprisonment. On appeal, Knight argues that his revocation 

sentence is procedurally and substantively unreasonable. After review, we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND FACTS

In 2008, Defendant Knight pled guilty to possessing an unregistered shortbarrel shotgun, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d). After serving his 43-month 

prison term, Defendant Knight began serving his three-year supervised release 

term in June 2011. Two conditions of Knight’s supervised release were that he not 

commit another crime or unlawfully use any controlled substance.

In October 2012, Knight’s probation officer petitioned to revoke Knight’s 

supervised release based on Knight’s: (1) September 26, 2012 attack on his former 

girlfriend with a steel pipe, for which a Florida state charge of attempted murder 

was pending; (2) July 5, 2011 threat to kill a man, for which Knight was arrested 

on an Alabama state charge of harassment; and (3) positive tests for cocaine use on 

August 9, 2011, and October 5, 2011, and admissions by Knight that he had used 

cocaine three other times, on August 5, 2011, August 6, 2011, and November 10, 

2011, despite the fact that Knight was enrolled in an intensive outpatient treatment 

program.

USCA11 Case: 14-13937 Date Filed: 03/31/2015 Page: 2 of 8
3

In July 2014, after a jury convicted Knight of attempted murder and a 

Florida court sentenced him to thirty years in prison, the probation officer filed an 

amended petition alleging the same three violations. Knight waived his right to an 

initial revocation hearing and admitted the violations as charged in the amended 

petition.

At his final revocation hearing, Knight did not request a particular sentence, 

but requested that any sentence imposed run concurrent to his state sentence. 

Knight argued that: (1) he was required to serve 85 percent of his thirty-year state 

sentence and would not be released until 2037; (2) a consecutive federal sentence 

“20 years from now” would not serve any purpose and “would probably interfere 

with his reintegration into the community when he is released”; and (3) “the state 

court, I’m sure, considered [Knight’s] record in imposing that 30-year sentence and 

the fact that he was on probation at the time that he committed that [attempted 

murder].” In response, the government asked for a 24-month sentence, at the high 

end of the advisory guidelines range, and for the sentence to run consecutive to the 

state sentence because Knight “owes that to this Court related to the underlying 

firearms charge that he was serving the sentence and was on supervised release 

for.”

After listening to the parties’ arguments, the district court stated that it had 

“considered the chapter seven provisions in this case,” and noted that the resulting 

USCA11 Case: 14-13937 Date Filed: 03/31/2015 Page: 3 of 8
4

range was 18 to 24 months. The district court found “the 24-month sentence to be 

appropriate in this case,” and “that a consecutive sentence is appropriate, given all 

the facts and circumstances of this case.” After revoking Knight’s supervised 

release, the district court reiterated that the “chapter seven provisions are 

appropriate,” and imposed a 24-month sentence “to be consecutive to the sentence 

[Knight is] now serving in the state of Florida.” The district court imposed a new 

12-month term of supervised release following Knight’s 24-month prison term, 

stated that all previous conditions of supervised release applied, and added the 

condition that Knight was not to have contact with his former girlfriend or her 

children.

The district court asked whether there were any objections to its “findings 

and conclusions and the manner in which the sentence was imposed.” Knight’s 

counsel responded, “Judge, I think the length of the sentence is unreasonable, in 

light of the sentence that he’s serving in Florida.”

II. DISCUSSION

When a defendant violates a condition of supervised release, the district 

court may revoke the supervised release term and impose a prison term. See 18 

U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). Before imposing a prison term upon revocation, the district 

USCA11 Case: 14-13937 Date Filed: 03/31/2015 Page: 4 of 8
5

court must consider certain factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Id. § 3583(e).1 The 

district court also must consider the policy statements in Chapter 7 of the 

Sentencing Guidelines, which includes, inter alia, non-binding ranges of 

imprisonment. United States v. Silva, 443 F.3d 795, 799 (11th Cir. 2006).

According to the policy statements in Chapter 7, any sentence imposed upon 

revocation is a sanction for the defendant’s breach of trust, and, as such, “should be 

in addition, or consecutive, to any sentence imposed for the new conduct.” 

U.S.S.G. ch. 7, pt. A, 3(b). Thus, Chapter 7 also provides that “[a]ny term of 

imprisonment imposed upon revocation of probation or supervised release shall be 

ordered to be served consecutively to any sentence of imprisonment that the 

defendant is serving, whether or not the sentence of imprisonment being served 

resulted from the conduct that is the basis of the revocation.” U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f); 

see also id. ch. 7, pt. B, introductory cmt.

Ordinarily, we review a sentence imposed upon the revocation of supervised 

release for reasonableness, applying the deferential abuse of discretion standard. 

United States v. Vandergrift, 754 F.3d 1303, 1307 (11th Cir. 2014). In reviewing 

for reasonableness, we first consider whether the district court committed any 

 

1

Specifically, the district court must consider: (1) the nature and circumstances of the 

offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need for the sentence 

imposed to afford adequate deterrence, protect the public, and provide the defendant with needed 

educational or vocational training and medical care; (3) the Sentencing Guidelines range and 

pertinent policy statements of the Sentencing Commission; (4) the need to avoid unwarranted 

sentencing disparities; and (5) the need to provide restitution. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (crossreferencing 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B)-(D), and (a)(4)-(7)).

USCA11 Case: 14-13937 Date Filed: 03/31/2015 Page: 5 of 8
6

significant procedural error and then whether the sentence is substantively 

unreasonable in light of the relevant § 3553(a) factors and the totality of the 

circumstances. United States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179, 1190 (11th Cir. 2008). The 

party challenging the sentence has the burden to show it is unreasonable. United 

States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir. 2005).

A. Procedural Reasonableness

As to procedural reasonableness, Knight argues that the district court “failed 

to make sufficient findings to support” running Knight’s federal prison term 

consecutive to his state sentence. Knight did not object to the adequacy of the 

district court’s explanation for the consecutive sentence during the revocation 

hearing, arguing only that “the length of the sentence is unreasonable.” Where the 

defendant “did not object to the procedural reasonableness at the time of his 

sentencing, we review for plain error.” Vandergrift, 754 F.3d at 1307. 

Here, Knight has not shown error, much less plain error. Under our 

precedent, although the district court must adequately explain the chosen sentence, 

it is not required to explicitly discuss each of the § 3553(a) factors on the record. 

United States v. Livesay, 525 F.3d 1081, 1090 (11th Cir. 2008); see also 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(c). Furthermore, “the district court is not required to give a lengthy 

explanation for its sentence if the case is typical of those contemplated by the 

Sentencing Commission.” Livesay, 525 F.3d at 1090.

USCA11 Case: 14-13937 Date Filed: 03/31/2015 Page: 6 of 8
7

The district court explained that Chapter 7’s call for a consecutive sentence 

was appropriate under the “facts and circumstances” of Knight’s case. While this 

explanation was brief, nothing in the record suggests that Knight’s case was 

atypical and warranted anything less than the consecutive sentence generally 

contemplated by the Sentencing Commission. Indeed, Knight’s arguments for a 

concurrent sentence were also brief and were either inconsistent with the 

Commission’s policy statements or not based on facts in the record. 

Knight contended that a consecutive sentence would not “serve any 

purpose” and would “probably interfere with his reintegration into the community 

when he is released,” without explaining how that claim was true. Indeed, 

sanctioning Knight for his abuse of the district court’s trust is more likely to ensure 

that Knight complies with the conditions of his new 12-month term of supervised 

release and thus successfully reintegrates into the community. Knight also 

suggested that the state court had considered Knight’s federal supervised release in 

imposing the thirty-year sentence, but did not provide any evidence that the state 

court had in fact done so. Under the circumstances, we cannot say the district 

court was required to give a more detailed explanation of its decision to impose a 

consecutive sentence.

B. Substantive Reasonableness

USCA11 Case: 14-13937 Date Filed: 03/31/2015 Page: 7 of 8
8

We also cannot say that the 24-month consecutive term was substantively 

unreasonable. Knight’s term is within both the statutory range of no more than two 

years and the advisory guidelines range of 18 to 24 months. See 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3583(e)(3); U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a). As already noted, the Sentencing Guidelines 

generally contemplate any prison sentence imposed upon revocation is to be served 

consecutive to any other sentence for the underlying criminal conduct. See

U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f). Knight admitted using cocaine on multiple occasions and 

committing two crimes, including attempting to murder his former girlfriend with a 

steel pipe. In light of these circumstances, we conclude a 24-month sentence to be 

served consecutive to his thirty-year state sentence for attempted murder is not 

outside the range of reasonable sentences.

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 14-13937 Date Filed: 03/31/2015 Page: 8 of 8