FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT A U G U ST 27, 2007 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 10413 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 01 -002 32 -C R -J T C -1 U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s G R E G O R Y A . B A X T E R , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( A u gu s t 27, 2007) B efo re B L A C K , M A R C U S an d K R A V IT C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: G r e gory A l a n B a xt e rappe a l s hi s 20- m onth s e nt e nc e i m pos e d f ol l ow i ng the2

r e voc a t i on of

hi s s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e pur s ua ntt o 18 U . S . C . § 3583( e ) ( 3) . F orthe r e a s o n s th a tf

o l l o w , w e a f

f i rm. I . B AC KG RO UN D I n 2001, B a xt e rpl e a de d gui l ty t o one c ountof ba nk r obbe ry , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 2 11 3(a) . T he U . S . P robat i on O ff i ce prepare d a pres ent ence i n v est i g at i o n rep o rt(“ P S I”), w h i ch st at ed th atB ax t er’ s o ffen se o f co n v i ct i o n w as a C la s s C f e lo n y w ith as ta tu to ry m a x im u m p e n a lty o f 2 0 y e a r s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. B ec ause of hi s l engthy cr i m i nal hi st ory, the P S I a ss i gn ed B axt era c ri m i nal hi st ory cat eg o ry o f V I. T h ereafter, th e d i stri ctco u rtsen t en ced B ax t er t o 7 0 m o n th s’ im p r is o n m e n t, to b e f

o llo w e d b y 3 6 m o n th s o f s u p e rv is e d r e le a s e . O n A pr i l 14, 2006, B a xt e rw a s r e l e a s e d f r om pr i s on a nd be ga n hi s t e rm of s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e . O n June 2, 2006, the di s tr i c tc our ti s s ue d a n or de rt o s how cause a s t o w hy B axt er ’ s s up ervi se d rel ea se shou l d n otbe re vo ked, char gi ng that B a xt e rha d vi ol a t e d the c ondi t i ons of hi s r e l e a s e by f

a i l i ng t o r e por tf

ordrug t es t i ng and b y bei ng arre st ed for s i m pl e batt ery. O n Jul y 6, 20 06 , the di stri ctcourt i s s ue d a n a m e nde d s how - c a us e or de r , c ha r gi ng B a xt e rw i th m a ki ng untruthf ul st at em ent s t o h i s probat i on offi ce r a nd kn ow i ng l y a ss oci at i ng w i th a conv i ct ed f e l on. T he di s tr i c tc our tf ound tha tB a xt e rha d vi ol a t e d hi s s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e a nd s e nt e nc e d hi m t o 4 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e nt , t o be f ol l ow e d by 32 m onths of3

s u p e rv is e d r e le a s e , w ith th e f ir s t 4 m o n th s to b e s e rv e din h o m e c o n f in e m e n t. B a xt e rw a s r e l e a s e d f

r om pr i s on i n O c t obe r2006, a nd on D e c e m be r22, 2006, the di s tr i c tc our ti s s ue d as um m ons a nd or de rt o s how c a us e a s t o w hy B axt er ’ s s up ervi se d rel ea se shou l d n otbe re vo ked. T he show -c ause order a l l eged thatB axt erhad v i ol at ed the cond i t i on s of hi s s up ervi se d rel ea se by fa i l i ng t o report t o hi s pr oba t i on of

f i c e rw i thi n 72 hour s of

hi s r e l e a s e f

r om pr i s on, m a ki ng untruthf ul s t a t e m e nt s t o hi s pr oba t i on of f i c e r , l e a vi ng the N or the rn D i s tr i c tof G e or gi aw i thoutpe rm i s s i on, f a i l i ng t o s ubm i tt o drug t e s t i ng, a nd t e s t i ng pos i t i ve for c ocai ne. D ur i ng the r e voc a t i on he a r i ng on J a nua ry 8, 2007, B a xt e rc onc e de d the v io la tio n s , b u t s ta te d th a t h e h a d r e c e n tly f o u n d s e c u r e e m p lo y m e n t, th a t h e c o u ld c om pl y w i th the r e qui r e m e nt s of s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e , a nd tha the w oul d be w i l l i ng t o l i ve i n aha l f

w a y hous e t o ge thi s l i f

e or ga ni z e d. B a xt e r ’ s c ouns e l not e d tha tthe p ro b at i o n o ffi cer h ad reco m m en d ed th atth e t erm s o f B ax t er’ s su p erv i sed rel ease i ncl ud e pl ac em enti n a hal fw ayho use f or 4 m on ths w i th el ec troni c- brac el et m oni t or i ng. B a xt e r ’ s c ouns e l f ur the rnot e d tha tthe 4 m onths of hom e c onf

i ne m e nt th e c o u r t h a d o r d e r e d in O c to b e r2 0 0 6 h a d n o t b e e n e x e c u te d b e c a u s e B a x te rd id n o t h av e a h o m e. In re sp o n se , th e G o v er n m en t o b jected to th e p ro b atio n o ff icer ’s re com m endat i on re gardi ng the hal fw ayho use a nd el ec troni c m on i t ori ng and asked4

th e c o u r t to s e n te n c e B a x te rto 1 2 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. U pon f i ndi ng tha tB a xt e rvi ol a t e d the t e rm s of hi s s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e , the d i stri ctco u rtrev o k ed th e rem ai n d er o f h i s rel ease an d sen t en ced h i m t o 2 0 m o n th s’ i m pr i s onm e nt . R e ga r di ng the s e nt e nc e , the c our ts t a t e d: T h ati s th e m ax i m u m sen t en ce I am ab l e t o sen t en ce yo u t o , as I unde r s t a nd i t , unde rthe pr e s e nts e nt e nc i ng gui de l i ne s . I don’ tthi nk tha tthe gui de l i ne r a nge i s a de qua t e t o a ddr e s s y ours i tua t i on. T he hi s t ory of

y ours upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e s how s tha ty ou w i l l not c om pl y w i th the c ondi t i ons of y ours upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e , y ou’ ve r e pe a t e dl y f

a i l e d t o c om pl y , y ou ha ve c ont i nue d y ourdrug us e , y ou have fai l ed t o sub m i tfor drug t es t i ng on a num ber of occa si on s w hi ch i nd i ca t es there m aybe se vera l other occa si on s i n w hi ch you’ ve been us i ng drugs . Y ou ha ve as i gni f i c a ntc r i m i na l hi s t ory , s e ve r a l of the offe nses i nv ol ve vi ol ence . M ostof these offe nses w er e c om m i tt ed w h ile y o u w e r e o n s o m e s o r t o f p r o b a tio n a ry s e n te n c e s im ila rto supervi se d rel ea se . T he l as tt i m e y ou w er e r evok ed w as the re sul tof a new cr i m i nal offe nse w hi ch w as an as saul ton a f orm ergi rl fr i end w ho the courthad in s tru c te d y o u n o t to I b e lie v e h a v e c o n ta c t w ith . S o I th in kth e o n ly w a y to g o , o n e , r e s o lv e th is a n d , tw o , to p r o te c t th e c o m m u n ity , is to s e n te n c e y o u to th e 2 0 m o n th s w ith n o s u p e rv is e d r e le a s e to f o llo w . T he c our tthe n a s ke d B a xt e r ’ s c ouns e l i f he ha d “ a ny obj e c t i on t o the se nt ence or the m anner i n w hi ch i tw as i m po se d? ” B axt er ’ s c ou nsel re spon ded that h e d id a n d s ta te d th a t “I r e s p e c tf u lly s u g g e s t th a t th e s e n te n c e th a t y o u im p o s e d is notr e a s onabl e unde r[ 18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) ] . ” T he c our tr e pl i e d “ I unde r s t a nd” a nd i nf orm e d B a xt e rof

hi s r i ghtt o appe a l hi s s e nt e nc e . T he c our tthe n a s ke d the G o v e rn m e n t if

it o b je c te d to th e s e n te n c e , a n d th e G o v e rn m e n t r e s p o n d e d th a t it5

d id n o t. B a x te rn o w ap p e a ls . I I . DI S CUS S I ON O n appe a l , B a xt e ra r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tf a i l e d t o e l i c i tobj e c t i ons a f te rim p o s in g s e n te n c e a s r e q u ir e d b y U n ite d S ta te s v . J o n e s , 8 9 9 F .2 d 1 0 9 7 ( 1 1 th C i r . 1990) , ove rrul e d on othe rgr ounds by U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M orr i l l , 984 F . 2d 1136 (11th C i r. 19 93 ), and fai l ed t o suffi ci ent l y i nd i ca t e on the re cord thati thad co n si d ered th e S en t en ci n g G u i d el i n es b efo re i m p o si n g th e sen t en ce. W e ad d ress e a c h a r gum e nti n turn. A . C om p l i an ce w i th Jo n es P ur s ua ntt o J one s , “ a f

t e ri m pos i ng as e nt e nc e , the di s tr i c tc our tm us tgi ve the pa r t i e s a n oppor tuni ty t o obj e c tt o the c our t ’ s ul t i m a t e f i ndi ngs of

f a c t , c onc l us i ons o f la w , a n d th e m a n n e rin w h ic h th e s e n te n c e is p r o n o u n c e d , a n d m u s t e lic it af u ll a r t i c ul a t i on of

the gr ounds upon w hi c h a ny obj e c t i on i s ba s e d. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C a m p b e ll, 4 7 3 F .3 d 1 3 4 5 , 1 3 4 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) ( c itin g J o n e s , 8 9 9 F .2 d a t 1 1 0 2 ) . T he obj e c t i on- e l i c i t a t i on r e qui r e m e nts e rve s tw o purpos e s : “ ( 1) aw e l l - m a de obj e c t i on m a y pe rm i tthe c our tt o c ur e a n e rr or , pe rhaps a voi di ng the ne e d f or appe a l ; a nd ( 2) a n obj e c t i on m a y na rr ow the i s s ue s on appe a l . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H ol l ow ay , 97 1 F . 2d 67 5, 68 1 (11 th C i r. 19 92 ). “ W here the di stri ctcourthas of f e r e d the oppor tuni ty t o obj e c ta nd apa rty i s s i l e ntorf a i l s t o s t a t e the gr ounds6

for obj ec t i on , obj ec t i on s t o the se nt ence w i l l be w ai ved for the pu rpose of app ea l . ” I d . W e “w ill n o t e n te r ta in a n ap p e a l b a s e d u p o n s u c h o b je c tio n s u n le s s r e f

u s a l to d o s o w o u ld r e s u lt in m a n if e s t in ju s tic e .” I d . Wh e n ad i s tr i c tc o u r tf

a i l s t o e l i c i to b

j e c t i o n s a f

t e ri m p o s i n g s e n t e n c e , “ we no rm al l y vac at e the se nt ence and rem and t o the di stri ctcourtt o g i ve the part i es an oppor tuni ty t o pr e s e ntthe i robj e c t i ons . ” C a m pbe l l , 473 F . 3d a t1347. “ A r e m a nd i s unn ec es sa ry , ho w ever , w hen the re cord on appeal i s s uffi ci entt o enabl e r evi ew . ” I d. A nd thi s c our tha s r e c e nt l y c l a r i f i e d tha tthe J one s rul e appl i e s t o s upe rvi s e dr e le a s e r e v o c a tio n p r o c e e d in g s . I d . I n J one s , thi s c our the l d tha tthe obj e c t i on- e l i c i t a t i on r e qui r e m e ntc oul d ha ve been sa t i sf

i ed i n thatca se “ i f the [di stri ct ] court , af t erpron ou nci ng se nt ence , had as ked cou nsel w hether there w er e any obj ec t i on s— to the se nt ence or to the m an ner in w h ic h th e c o u r t p r o n o u n c e d it

— othe rtha n thos e pr e vi ous l y s t a t e d f orthe r e c or d. ” J one s , 899 F . 2d a t1102 ( e m pha s i s a dde d) . I n U ni t e d S t a t e s v. N e e l y , 979 F . 2d 1522 ( 11th C i r . 1992) , w e he l d tha t“ the di s tr i c tc our tf ol l ow e d our i ns truc t i ons i n U ni t e d S t a t e s v. J one s ” by a s ki ng “ the pa r t i e s w he the rthe y ha d ‘ any ob j ec t i on to the se nt ence or the m an ner i n w hi ch the se nt ence w as pron ou nced . ’ ” N e e l y , 979 F . 2d a t1523 ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) ( e m pha s i s a dde d) . I n U ni t e d S t a t e s v. W i l son, w e hel d thatthe Jones rul e w as sa t i sf i ed w here the di stri ctcourtst at ed “ ar e7

the r e a ny e xc e pt i ons t o the f i ndi ngs m a de i n the s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng? ” 983 F . 2d 221, 225- 26 ( 11th C i r . 1993) . I n U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M a ur i c e , w e he l d tha t“ [ t ] he di s tr i c tc our tc om pl i e d w i th J one s by a s ki ng f orobj e c t i ons a f

t e ri m pos i t i on of

the s e nt e nc e . ” 69 F . 3d 1553, 1557 ( 11th C i r . 1995) . A nd i n U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R a m s da l e , w e he l d tha tJ one s w a s s a t i s f i e d w he r e the di s tr i c tc our ta s ke d “ a ny thi ng e ls e . . . n e c e s s a ry in th is r e s e n te n c in g ,” a n d d e f e n s e c o u n s e l s ta te d a n o b je c tio n in r e s pons e , the r e by de m ons tr a t i ng tha the unde r s t ood the c our tt o be e l i c i t i ng o b je c tio n s . 1 7 9 F .3 d 1 3 2 0 , 1 3 2 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) . B a xt e ra r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tf a i l e d t o c om pl y w i th the obj e c t i onel i ci t at i on re qu i re m entof Jones bec ause the di stri ctcourtfa i l ed t o ask i f B axt er ha d a ny obj e c t i ons t o the c our t ’ s “ ul t i m a t e f i ndi ngs of

f a c ta nd c onc l us i ons of l aw . ” W e di sa gree . A f t e ri m pos i ng the s e nt e nc e , the di s tr i c tc our ta s ke d B a xt e r ’ s c ouns e l i f he had “ any obj ec t i on t o the se nt ence or the m anner i n w hi ch i tw as i m po se d? ” B a xt e r ’ s c ouns e l r e pl i e d “ I do. I r e s pe c t f ul l y s ugge s ttha tthe s e nt e nc e tha ty ou i m pos e d i s notr e a s onabl e unde r[ 18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) ] . ” T hus , notonl y di d the di s tr i c tc our ts pe c i f

i c a l l y a s ke d de f

e ns e c ouns e l i f

he ha d any obj e c t i on t o the se nt ence , th e c o u r t a l

so a s ke d i f

de f e ns e c ouns e l ha d any obj ec t i on t o “ the m anner i n w hi c h [ the s e nt e nc e ] w a s i m pos e d, ” w hi c h, ne c e s s a r i l y i nc l ude s a ny f a c tua l or8

l e ga l ba s e s upon w hi c h the di s tr i c tc our tr e l i e d i n i m pos i ng the s e nt e nc e . N othi ng i n the re cord i nd i ca t es thatthe di stri ctcourt ’ s r equestfor obj ec t i on s w as l i m i t ed so l el y t o o b

j ect i o n s b ased o n th e reaso n ab l en ess o f th e s e n te n c e . F ur the rm or e , nothi ng i n ourc a s e - l a w c ons trui ng J one s r e qui r e s tha tthe d is tr ic t c o u r t s p e c if

ic a lly a s k ap a r ty w h e th e rh e o b je c ts to th e c o u r t’s “u ltim a te f i ndi ngs of

f a c ta nd c onc l us i ons of

l a w . ” S e e W i l s on, 983 F . 2d a t225- 26 ( hol di ng thatJones w as sa t i sf

i ed w here the di stri ctcourtas ked “ ar e there a n y excep t i o n s to the f i ndi ngs m a de i n the s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng? ” ( e m pha s i s a dde d) ) ; M a ur i c e , 69 F . 3d at1 5 5 7 (“ T h e d i stri ctco u rtco m p l i ed w i th Jo n es b y as ki ng f orobj e c t i ons af

t er i m pos i t i on of

the s e nt e nc e . ” ( e m pha s i s a dde d) ) ; R a m s da l e , 179 F . 3d a t1324 ( h o ld in g th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s in q u iry o f “a n y th in g e ls e . . . n e c e s s a ry in th is r e s e n te n c in g ” s a tis f

ie d J o n e s w h e r e d e f

e n s e c o u n s e l s ta te d a n o b je c tio n in r e s p o n s e ) . A g a in , a s lo n g a s “th e d is tr ic t c o u r t h a s o ffe r e d th e o p p o r tu n ity to ob j ec t ,” th e J o n e s ru le is s a tis f ie d . J o n e s , 8 9 9 F .2 d a t 1 1 0 3 ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) . Indeed, as st at ed abov e, i n N ee l y w e hel d thatJones w as sa t i sf i ed w here the di stri ct c our t“ a s ke d the pa r t i e s w he the rthe y ha d ‘ anyobj e c t i on to the s e nte nc e orthe m an ner i n w hi ch the se nt ence w as pron ou nced [ , ] ’ ” N e e l y , 979 F . 2d a t1523 (e m ph as i s a dd ed), w hi ch i s nea rl y i dent i ca l t o the qu es t i on the di stri ctcourtpo se d du ri ng B axt er ’ s r evocat i on hear i ng . B ec ause the di stri ctcourtprov i ded B axt er9

w i th a n oppor tuni ty t o l odge a ny obj e c t i on t o the s e nt e nc e a nd the ba s e s upon w hi ch the di stri ctcourtre l i ed i n i m po si ng thatse nt ence , w e c on cl ud e thatthe Jones ru le w a s s a tis f

ie d . B . O n -t h e- R ec ord C on si d er ati on of th e S en te n ci n g G u i d el i n es B a x te rn e x t a r g u e s th a t th e “d is tr ic t c o u r t f a ile d to s ta te o n th e r e c o r d its c o n c lu s io n s r e g a r d in g its c a lc u la tio n s u n d e rth e s e n te n c in g g u id e lin e s ,” s o th a t h is s e n te n c e is “in v a lid .” W e r e vi e w the l e ga l i ty of as e nt e nc e de novo. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. P l a , 345 F . 3d 13 12 , 13 13 (11th C i r. 20 03 ). B utw here , as here , the defendantfa i l ed t o rai se an i ssu e i n th e d i stri ctco u rt , w e rev i ew o n l y fo r p l ai n erro r. U n i t ed S t at es v . P et ers, 4 0 3 F . 3 d 1 2 6 3 , 1 2 7 0 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ). T o sat i sfy th e p l ai n -erro r st an d ard , w e m u st fi nd that(1) a n err or has occ urre d, (2) the error w as pl ai n, and (3) the error a ff ec t ed the de f e nda nt ’ s s ubs t a nt i a l r i ght s . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. Z i nn, 321 F . 3d 1084, 1087 ( 11th C i r . 2003) . I f

a l l thr e e c ondi t i ons a r e m e t , thi s c our tm a y , i n i t s di s c r e t i on, not i c e a nd c orr e c tthe f

or f e i t e d e rr or , butonl y i f

“ the e rr ors e r i ous l y a f

f e c t s the f a i rne s s , i nt e gr i ty , orpubl i c r e put a t i on of j udi c i a l pr oc e e di ngs . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R od ri gu ez , 39 8 F . 3d 12 91 , 12 98 (11th C i r. 20 05 ) ( qu ot at i on om i tt ed).

“ U n d er 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 8 3 (e), a d i stri ctco u rtm ay, u p o n fi n d i n g b y a pr e ponde r a nc e of

the e vi de nc e tha tade f

e nda ntha s vi ol a t e d ac ondi t i on of10

s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e , r e voke the t e rm of s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e a nd i m pos e at e rm of i m pri sonm entaf

t erconsi deri ng ce rt ai n fac t ors s etforth i n 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) . ” U n ite d S ta te s v . S w e e tin g , 4 3 7 F .3 d 1 1 0 5 , 1 1 0 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . F a c to r s to c ons i de ri nc l ude the na tur e a nd c i r c um s t a nc e s of the of f e ns e , the hi s t ory a nd char ac t er i st i cs of the defendant , the need t o aff ord adequ at e det erre nce t o cri m i nal c o n d u c t, a n d th e n e e d to p r o te c t th e p u b lic f r o m f u r th e rc r im e s o f

th e d e f e n d a n t. 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) . “O n e o f th e f a c to r s ac o u r t m u s t c ons i de r. . . i s . . . the s e nt e nc i ng r ange es t abl i shed [by] . . . the appl i cabl e gui del i nes or pol i cy s t a t e m e nt s i s s ue d by the S e nt e nc i ng C om m i s s i on. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. W hi t e , 416 F .3 d 1 3 1 3 , 1 3 1 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( c itin g 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) ( 4 ) ) ( e m p h a s is a dde d) . “ F ors e nt e nc e s i m pos e d upon r e voc a t i on of s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e , the re com m ended sent enci ng ra ng e i s bas ed on the cl as si fi ca t i on of the cond uctthat r e s u l t e d i n th e r e v o c a t i o n a n d th e c r i mi n a l h i s t o ry c a t e g o ry ap p l i c ab l e a tth e t i me the de f e nda ntor i gi na l l y w a s s e nt e nc e d t o the t e rm of s upe rvi s i on. ” C a m pbe l l , 473 F . 3d at13 48 -49 (ci t i ng U . S . S . G . §§ 7B 1. 1, 7B 1. 4). B utbecause “ the G ui del i nes have al w ay s bee n adv i soryfor s ent ence s i m po se d u po n revocat i on of supervi se d re l ea se , ” i ti s e no ug h “ thatthere be som e i nd i ca t i on thatthe di stri ctcourtw as a w a r e of a nd c ons i de r e d the G ui de l i ne s , w hi c h r e qui r e s the c our tt o c ons i de rthe s e nt e nc i ng r ange e s t abl i s he d unde rthe G ui de l i ne s . ” I d. a t1349 ( c i t a t i ons a nd11

i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a rks om i tt e d) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C ook, 291 F . 3d 1297, 1302 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) ( “[ S e c tio n ] 3 5 5 3 r e q u ir e s ac o u r t o n ly to consi derthe C hapt er S e v e n p o lic y s ta te m e n ts in d e te rm in in g ad e f e n d a n t’s s e n te n c e .” ) . C hapt e r7 of

the S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s gove rns s e nt e nc e s i m pos e d upon the r e voc a t i on of

s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e . I f

the de f e nda ntc om m i t s aG r a de C vi ol a t i on of th e t erm s o f h i s su p erv i sed rel ease (th ati s, a fed eral , st at e, o r l o cal o ffen se puni s habl e by one y e a rof i m pr i s onm e ntorl e s s , U . S . S . G . § 7B 1. 1( a ) ( 3) ) , the defe nd anthad a cri m i nal hi st ory c at egory of V I a tthe t i m e of hi s ori gi nal c onvi c t i on, a nd the di s tr i c tc our tr e voke s the de f e nda nt ’ s r e l e a s e a s ar e s ul t , the G ui del i nes r ange i s 8 t o 1 4 m on ths’ i m pri sonm ent . U . S . S . G . § 7 B 1. 4(a) . W here the defendant ’ s ori gi nal conv i ct i on w as a C l as s C fe l on y, the t ot al se nt ence i mp o s e d u p o n r e v o c a t i o n c a n n o te x c e e d 2 y e a r s ’ i mp r i s o n me n t . 1 8 U . S. C. § 3 58 3(e) (3). A nd thi s c ou rthas hel d thatthe aggregat i on of al l pe r i ods o f

p o s tr e voc a t i on i m pr i s onm e ntc a nnote xc e e d thi s s t a tut ory m a xi m um . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. W illia m s , 4 2 5 F .3 d 9 8 7 , 9 8 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . O n app ea l , B axt erar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourtfa i l ed t o st at e the G ui del i nes i m pr i s onm e ntr a nge , a nd, the r e f or e , thi s c our tc a nnotde t e rm i ne w he the rthe di stri ctcourtac cura t el y c al cul at ed the G ui del i nes r ange or w hether the di stri ct c our tc om pl i e d w i th i t s duty t o c ons ul ta nd c ons i de rthe G ui de l i ne s . T o tha te nd,12

he c ont e nds tha t“ the c our tc om pounde d the pr obl e m by of f e r i ng a m bi guous c o m m e n ts r e g a r d in g th e g u id e lin e s ” a n d m a k in g “c o n tr a d ic to ry a s s e r tio n s ,” r e q u ir in g th e p a r tie s “to g u e s s w h e th e ro rn o t th e c o u r t f o llo w e d its o b lig a tio n to corr ec t l y c al cul at e the se nt enci ng gu i del i nes r ange. ” A l tho ug h h e c on ce des that both hi s a tt orne y a nd the G ove rnm e nts t a t e d tha tthe G ui de l i ne s r a nge w a s 8 t o 14 m on ths’ i m pri sonm entdu ri ng the re vo ca t i on hear i ng , he as se rt s thatthe di stri ct courtw as re qu i re d t o “ expl i ci t l y” st at e i t s G ui del i nes c al cul at i on . W e a re unpe r s ua de d. B ec ause the di stri ctcourtre vo ked B axt er ’ s s up ervi se d rel ea se as a r es ul tof a G r a de C vi ol a t i on, a nd B a xt e rha d ac r i m i na l hi s t ory c a t e gory of V I a tthe t i m e of hi s or i gi na l ba nk r obbe ry c onvi c t i on, the r e s ul t i ng G ui de l i ne s r a nge w a s 8 t o 14 m o n th s’ i m p ri so n m en t . B ecau se B ax t er’ s b an kro b b ery co n v i ct i o n w as a C l ass C f e l ony , the di s tr i c tc our tc oul d noti m pos e a ggr e ga t e pe r i ods of pos t - r e voc a t i on i m pri sonm entexce edi ng 2 yea rs (24 m on ths). S ee 18 U . S . C . § 3 58 3(e) (3); W i l l i a m s , 425 F . 3d a t989. F ol l ow i ng the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s f i r s tr e voc a t i on of B axt er ’ s s up ervi se d rel ea se i n Jul y 200 6, the courti m po se d a se nt ence of 4 m on ths’ i m pri sonm ent . A s are sul t , fol l ow i ng the i nst antre vo ca t i on , the di stri ct c o u r t c o u ld o n ly im p o s e as e n te n c e o f 2 0 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t s o a s n o t to e x c e e d th e 2 - y e a r( 2 4 - mo n th ) s t a tu t o ry ma x i mu m p r o v i d e d u n d e r1 8 U . S. C.13

§ 3 5 8 3 (e)(3 ). In th i s l i g h t , th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s st at em en tth at2 0 m o n th s’ i m pr i s onm e ntw a s “ the m a xi m um s e nt e nc e ” i tc oul d i m pos e “ unde rthe pr e s e nt s e n te n c in g g u id e lin e s ” w a s in r e f e r e n c e to th e s ta tu to ry m a x im u m s e t f o r th in § 3 58 3(e) . A n d alth o u g h th e d istrict co u rt n ev er“ex p li citl y” stated th at B ax ter’s G u id elin es im p riso n m en t ran g e w as 8 to 1 4 m o n th s, th e c o u rt’s statem en t th at “I don’ tthi nk tha tthe gui de l i ne r a nge i s a de qua t e t o a ddr e s s [ B a xt e r ’ s ] s i tua t i on” a nd i t s i m po si t i on of a s ent ence thatexce eded thatra ng e dem on stra t e that , as re qu i re d by C a m pbe l l , the c our t“ c ons i de r [ e d] the s e nt e nc i ng r a nge e s t abl i s he d unde rthe G u id e lin e s [ ,]” C a m p b e ll, 4 7 3 F .3 d a t 1 3 4 9 ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ) . T hu s, there i s “ som e i nd i ca t i on thatthe di stri ctcourtw as aw ar e of a nd consi dere d the G ui del i nes” i n i m po si ng B axt er ’ s s ent ence , w hi ch, un der C am pb el l , i s a l l that is r e q u ir e d . S e e id . F u r th e rm o r e , e v e n if

w e w e r e to c o n c lu d e th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s s ta te m e n ts we r e i n s u f

f i c i e n tt o d e m o n s tr a t e th a ti t“ c o n s i d e r e d ” th e Gu i d e l i n e s r a n g e , we none the l e s s hol d tha ts uc h “ e rr or ” w a s ha rm l e s s , a s B a xt e rha s nots how n tha tthe

“ error” af

fe ct ed hi s s ub st ant i al ri gh t s. In se nt enci ng B axt ert o the st atut ory m ax im u m o f 2 0 m o n th s’ im p riso n m en t, th e d istrict co u rt co n sid er ed B ax ter’s hi st ory a nd char ac t er i st i cs and the need t o p rot ec tthe pu bl i c ( per § 35 53 (a )) ,14

de t e rm i ne d tha tthe G ui de l i ne s r a nge w a s i na de qua t e , a nd c onc l ude d tha tthe m axi m um se nt ence (pursuantt o § 35 83 (e )) of 20 m on ths’ i m pri sonm entw as w a rr a n te d . S p e c if

ic a lly , th e c o u r t c o n s id e r e d ( 1 ) B a x te r ’s r e p e a te d f a ilu r e s to c o m p ly w ith th e c o n d itio n s o f h is p r e v io u s te rm s o f

s u p e rv is e d r e le a s e ; ( 2 ) h is c ont i nue d drug us e ; ( 3) hi s f a i l ur e t o r e por tf

ordrug t e s t i ng; ( 4) hi s s i gni f i c a nt c r i m i na l hi s t ory ; ( 5) hi s c om m i s s i on of num e r ous vi ol e ntof

f e ns e s dur i ng p r o b a tio n a ry p e r io d s s im ila rto s u p e rv is e d r e le a s e ; a n d ( 6 ) th e r e s u ltin g n e e d to prot ec tthe com m un i ty f rom B axt er ’ s c on du ct . N othi ng i n the re cord evi nces that e ith e rth e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s c o n s id e r a tio n o f th e s e f a c to r s o rth e s e n te n c e im p o s e d in l i gh tof these fa ct ors w as “ i nv al i d” or “ un re as on abl e. ” S ee S w ee t i ng , 43 7 F . 3d at 1 1 0 7 . A n d i ti s cl ear fro m th e reco rd th atreg ard l ess of the s e nt e nc i ng r a nge sugg es t ed un der the G ui del i nes, the di stri ctcourtst i l l w ou l d h ave s ent ence d B axt er t o the st atut ory m axi m um of 20 m on ths’ i m pri sonm ent . A s s uch, B axt erhas f ai l ed to d e m o n s tr a te th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t p la in ly e rr e d in im p o s in g th e s e n te n c e . I I I . CONCL US I ON F or the foregoi ng re as on s, w e AF F I RM .