[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 17-15709

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cr-20057-MGC-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JAHED MOVLAYAZDANPAHI,

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(July 13, 2018)

Before TJOFLAT, NEWSOM and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Jahed Movlayazdanpahi appeals his 18-month above-guidelines sentence 

imposed following the second revocation of his supervised release. On appeal, 

Case: 17-15709 Date Filed: 07/13/2018 Page: 1 of 8 
2

Movlayazdanpahi argues that the district court failed to adequately consider his 

mitigating circumstances and imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. 

After review of the record and consideration of the parties’ briefs, we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

In June 2013, Movlayazdanpahi pled guilty to one count of receiving, 

concealing, and retaining a stolen tax refund check, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§§ 641 and 2. At sentencing, Movlayazdanpahi had a guidelines range of 33 to 41 

months’ imprisonment, driven largely by his criminal history category of VI. 

Movlayazdanpahi had a total of 14 criminal history points based on his prior 

criminal convictions, several of which involved driving without a valid license.

The district court sentenced Movlayazdanpahi to 33 months’ imprisonment 

followed by 3 years of supervised release and ordered him to pay $30,577.55 in 

restitution. Among other things, the conditions of Movlayazdanpahi’s supervised 

release required him: (1) not to leave the judicial district without permission of the 

court or a probation officer; (2) to notify the probation officer at least 10 days in 

advance of any change in residence or employment; and (3) not to commit another 

federal, state, or local crime. Movlayazdanpahi completed his 33-month sentence 

in August 2015 and began serving his 3-year term of supervised release.

In September 2016, Movlayazdanpahi was arrested for violating the 

conditions of his supervised release. At his revocation hearing for this first 

Case: 17-15709 Date Filed: 07/13/2018 Page: 2 of 8 
3

violation, Movlayazdanpahi admitted to three of the alleged violations: (1) failure 

to pay restitution; (2) failure to notify the probation officer after being questioned 

by law enforcement; and (3) failing to participate in his outpatient treatment 

program. The government agreed to dismiss the remaining three violations, two of 

which had to do with Movlayazdanpahi driving with a suspended license.

Movlayazdanpahi’s revocation guidelines range was 8 to 14 months, but he 

requested a downward variance to a sentence of home confinement, arguing that 

his criminal history category of VI overrepresented the seriousness of his criminal 

history, which largely involved traffic offenses. Movlayazdanpahi further asserted 

that home confinement would allow him to continue working, paying his 

restitution, and caring for his six-year-old son. The district court expressed 

concern about Movlayazdanpahi’s ability to continue doing these activities when 

he was not supposed to be driving with his license suspended. Movlayazdanpahi 

represented that he was working with a lawyer in state court to get his license 

issues resolved and that his girlfriend would be able assist him with transportation

in the meantime.

Though the district court expressed some additional reservations about 

Movlayazdanpahi’s ability to comply with the conditions of home confinement, the 

district court ultimately decided to “give [Movlayazdanpahi] a chance,” sentenced 

him to 6 months of home confinement, and reinstated his supervised release. The 

Case: 17-15709 Date Filed: 07/13/2018 Page: 3 of 8 
4

district court further instructed that Movlayazdanpahi was to remain employed, 

work on clearing up his driving record, and begin to pay his restitution.

In September 2017, approximately a year after his first violation, a second 

warrant was issued for Movlayazdanpahi’s arrest based on additional violations of 

his supervised release. Specifically, Movlayazdanpahi: (1) failed to refrain from 

violating the law when, in August 2017, he was arrested in Georgia for giving a 

false name, address, and birth date to a law enforcement officer and driving with a 

suspended license; (2) left the judicial district without permission; (3) failed to 

satisfy his restitution obligation as ordered; (4) failed to notify the probation office 

of a change in residence; and (5) failed to notify the probation office of a change in 

employment. Because his underlying offense was a Class C felony, 

Movlayazdanpahi faced a statutory maximum revocation term of two years (24 

months). 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). Based on Movlayazdanpahi’s criminal history 

category of VI, his revocation guidelines range was 8 to 14 months’ imprisonment.

At his second revocation hearing in January 2018, Movlayazdanpahi 

admitted all five violations. The government and the probation office 

recommended a 24-month revocation sentence. Movlayazdanpahi requested a 

more lenient revocation sentence, noting that he had been incarcerated since his 

August 2017 arrest in Georgia. Movlayazdanpahi further stated that, prior to his 

Case: 17-15709 Date Filed: 07/13/2018 Page: 4 of 8 
5

arrest, he had been doing very well at his new job and his employer was willing to 

rehire him upon his release.

The district court remarked that Movlayazdanpahi nevertheless had been 

“doing things he knows he shouldn’t be doing,” including being outside the district 

and “driving when he knows he doesn’t have a valid license.” The district court 

further noted that Movlayazdanpahi had “been chastised . . . for that in the past,” 

and that this was not his first supervised release violation. Movlayazdanpahi 

explained that his suspended driver’s license was the root of his problems and that 

the issue remained unresolved because he had trouble paying the fines he owed. 

Movlayazdanpahi asserted that he had been fighting to maintain a job so he could 

pay those fines and get his license back. Additionally, Movlayazdanpahi stated 

that he was now in a more stable living situation and that his girlfriend had 

volunteered to drive him to and from work until he resolved his license issues.

Movlayazdanpahi personally addressed the district court, reiterating that his 

issues with his license were “more monetary than anything else,” and stating that 

he had had trouble paying the fines because his previous employer refused to 

compensate him for all of the hours he worked. Movlayazdanpahi further asserted 

that he was hardworking, wanted to be a positive influence on his children, and 

wanted “to go back to work and just move forward with [his] life.”

Case: 17-15709 Date Filed: 07/13/2018 Page: 5 of 8 
6

The district court sentenced Movlayazdanpahi to 18 months’ imprisonment, 

stating that it had reviewed “the argument of counsel as well as the materials 

provided for me in the petition” for Movlayazdanpahi’s arrest.1

 Movlayazdanpahi 

objected to the above-guidelines sentence. He now appeals.

II. DISCUSSION

If a defendant violates the conditions of his supervised release, the district 

court may, after considering certain 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, revoke the 

defendant’s supervised release. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). In imposing a revocation 

sentence, the district court must consider, among other things, the nature and 

circumstances of the offense, the defendant’s history and characteristics, the need 

for deterrence, and the applicable guidelines range. Id. §§ 3583(e), 3553(a)(1), 

(2)(B)-(C), (4).

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

discretion, and review the revocation sentence imposed for reasonableness. United 

States v. Vandergrift, 754 F.3d 1303, 1307 (11th Cir. 2014). The party challenging 

the sentence bears the burden of showing its unreasonableness, and we will not 

vacate a defendant’s sentence unless we are “left with the definite and firm 

conviction that the district court committed a clear error of judgment in weighing 

 1

Notably, the district court did not impose any additional supervised release term 

following this 18-month incarceration sentence. Thus, following his release from custody on his 

revocation sentence, Movlayazdanpahi will not be subject to any further supervision in 

connection with this conviction.

Case: 17-15709 Date Filed: 07/13/2018 Page: 6 of 8 
7

the § 3553(a) factors by arriving at a sentence that lies outside the range of 

reasonable sentences dictated by the facts of the case.” United States v. Trailer, 

827 F.3d 933, 936 (11th Cir. 2016) (quotation omitted). That a sentence is outside 

the guidelines range does not render it presumptively unreasonable, and when the 

district court varies from the guidelines range, we must “give due deference to the 

district court’s decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify the extent of 

the variance.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). 

Furthermore, “[t]he fact that [we] might reasonably have concluded that a different 

sentence was appropriate is insufficient to justify reversal.” Id.

Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking 

Movlayazdanpahi’s supervised release and imposing an 18-month revocation 

sentence. As outlined above, the district court granted Movlayazdanpahi leniency 

in his first revocation proceeding and varied below the guidelines range to impose 

a sentence of home confinement, intended to allow Movlayazdanpahi to continue 

working, pay his restitution, and get his life back on track. In his first revocation 

proceeding, Movlayazdanpahi represented that he was working earnestly to resolve 

his license issues and would find alternative solutions for his transportation needs 

in the meantime. Nevertheless, despite these representations and despite being 

given a second chance by the district court, Movlayazdanpahi violated his 

supervised release again just one year later.

Case: 17-15709 Date Filed: 07/13/2018 Page: 7 of 8 
8

Under these particular circumstances, it was not unreasonable for the district 

court, in Movlayazdanpahi’s second revocation proceeding, to reject his renewed 

representations that he would seek alternative transportation and resolve his license 

issues. Nor was it unreasonable for the district court to conclude that an aboveguidelines revocation sentence was necessary to deter Movlayazdanpahi from 

further violations, in light of his demonstrated inability to comply with the 

conditions of his supervised release and repeated history of driving with a 

suspended license. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (2)(B). Movlayazdanpahi 

complains that the district court failed to give sufficient weight to his mitigating 

circumstances, such as his stable job and home life, but the weight given to any 

particular § 3553(a) factor is committed to the district court’s sound discretion, and 

we see no clear error in the district court’s weighing of those factors here. See

United States v. Clay, 483 F.3d 739, 743 (11th Cir. 2007).

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the district court did not err in 

imposing an 18-month sentence on the second revocation of Movlayazdanpahi’s 

supervised release. Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 17-15709 Date Filed: 07/13/2018 Page: 8 of 8