Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-14-11939/USCOURTS-ca11-14-11939-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Steven Michael Johns
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-11939

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 2:91-cr-00018-WCO-JCF-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

STEVEN MICHAEL JOHNS, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________

(January 21, 2015)

Before TJOFLAT, WILSON, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

USCA11 Case: 14-11939 Date Filed: 01/21/2015 Page: 1 of 4
2

Steven Michael Johns appeals his sentence of 24 months’ imprisonment, 

imposed after the revocation of his supervised release, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3583(e). On appeal, Johns argues that his sentence was substantively 

unreasonable because the district court failed to consider the impact that his serious 

health condition would have on his ability to commit future crimes. He further 

argues that the district court failed to consider the impact that the federal detainer,

issued with respect to the revocation of his supervised release, had on the state 

prison sentence that he was serving at that time. 

We review the district court’s revocation of supervised release for an abuse 

of discretion, and the sentence imposed upon the revocation of supervised release 

for reasonableness. United States v. Velasquez, 524 F.3d 1248, 1252 (11th Cir. 

2008). We also review the reasonableness of a sentence under a deferential abuse 

of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 128 S.Ct. 586, 591, 

169 L.Ed.2d 447 (2007). The party who challenges the sentence bears the burden 

to show that the sentence is unreasonable in light of the record and the § 3553(a) 

factors. United States v. Tome, 611 F.3d 1371, 1378 (11th Cir. 2010). 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), upon finding that the defendant violated a 

condition of supervised release, a district court may revoke the term of supervised 

release and impose a term of imprisonment after considering the specific factors 

set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). Those factors include: 

USCA11 Case: 14-11939 Date Filed: 01/21/2015 Page: 2 of 4
3

(1) the nature and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need to deter criminal 

conduct; (3) public protection; (4) the need to provide the defendant with medical 

care or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner; (5) the applicable 

guideline range; (6) the pertinent policy statements of the Sentencing Commission; 

(7) the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities; and (8) the need to 

provide restitution to victims. Id.; 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B)-(D), and 

(a)(4)-(7). When the felony that resulted in the term of supervised release is a class 

C felony, 24 months is the maximum term of imprisonment the court may impose. 

18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3).

The weight given to any specific § 3553(a) factor is committed to the sound 

discretion of the district court. United States v. Clay, 483 F.3d 739, 743 (11th Cir. 

2007). A court can abuse its discretion when it: (1) fails to consider relevant 

factors that were due significant weight; (2) gives an improper or irrelevant factor 

significant weight; or (3) commits a clear error of judgment by balancing the 

proper factors unreasonably. United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1189 (11th Cir. 

2010) (en banc). However, a court is not required to explicitly state that it has 

considered each of the § 3553(a) factors or detail the weight accorded to each 

factor. United States v. Garza-Mendez, 735 F.3d 1284, 1290 (11th Cir. 2013), cert. 

denied, 135 S.Ct. 54 (2014); see also United States v. Scott, 426 F.3d 1324, 1329 

(11th Cir. 2005).

USCA11 Case: 14-11939 Date Filed: 01/21/2015 Page: 3 of 4
4

Johns’s sentence of 24 months’ imprisonment was substantively reasonable 

because the district court properly considered the relevant § 3553(a) factors. 

Although Johns argues that the court’s concern with recidivism was 

overemphasized because his poor health would impede his ability to commit future 

crimes, it was within the court’s discretion to determine the proper weight to give 

his extensive criminal history. See Clay, 483 F.3d at 743. Moreover, Johns’s 

serious health condition and the availability of medical treatment at the prison 

facility were proper sentencing factors for the court to consider. See 18 U.S.C. 

§§ 3553(a)(2)(D) and 3583(e). Finally, while Johns argues that the district court 

failed to consider the purported effect of the federal detainer on his time in state 

custody, the court need not explicitly discuss each factor on the record. See GarzaMendez, 735 F.3d at 1290. 

Upon review of the record and careful consideration of the parties’ briefs, 

we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 14-11939 Date Filed: 01/21/2015 Page: 4 of 4