T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe doctr i nes of * law o f th e c a se , res ju d ica ta, a n d c o llate ra l es to p p e l. Itm a yb e c ited , h o w e v e r, f o r its per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t entw i th Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 and 10th C i r . R . 32. 1.

## F I LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### A u gu s t 1, 2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. N o. 07- 1050 GER ALD CH RI STOPHER CH AV EZ, D e f e n d a n t-A p p e llan t. ( D . C. N o. 05 - CR - 03 67 - PSF) ( D . C ol or ado)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e B R I S C O E , M c K A Y , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es. A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, thi s panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l yt o honorthe part i es ’ r eques tfora dec i s i on on the br i efs w i thoutor al ar gum ent . See Fed. R . A pp. P. 34( f) ; 10th C i r . R . 34. 1( G ) . T he ca s e i s , ther efor e, o rd e re d s u b m itte d w ith o u t o ra l a rg u m e n t. D efe ndantG er al d C hr i s t opherC havez appea l s fr om the tw el ve- m onth- and- onedays ent ence i m pos ed bythe di s tr i ctcourtforvi ol at i on of the t erm s of hi s s upervi s ed r e l e a s e . W e e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 a n d a f f i r m.-2- I. I n J une 1994, C havez w as s ent ence d i n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe E a ste rn D istric t o f

C a lifo rn ia to a ter m o f

im p riso n m e n t o f

o n e -h u n d re d -a n d -th irty m onths , t o be fol l ow ed bya s i xty - m onth t erm of s upervi s ed r el eas e, forhi s convi ct i on on one countof arm ed bank r obbery . C havez compl et ed hi s t erm of i m pr i s onm entand began hi s t erm of s upervi s ed r el eas e i n J anuary2005. I n A ugus t2005, j ur i s di ct i on over C havez ’ s t erm of s upervi s ed r el eas e w as tr ans ferr ed fr om the s ent enci ng courtt o the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfo r th e D istri ct of C o lorad o . O n A p ri l 10 , 2 0 0 6 , C h av ez ’s su p e rv ise d re lea se w a s re v o k e d a n d h e w a s s e n ten c e d to f o rty -six d a y s o f

im p riso n m e n t, t o be fol l ow ed bya four - y eart erm of s upervi s ed r el eas e. C havez compl et ed the forty - s i xdayt erm of i m pr i s onm enton M ay25, 2006, and bega n s ervi ng the new t erm of s upervi s ed r el eas e. O n S e p tem b e r 1 3 , 2 0 0 6 , C h a v e z ’s p ro b a tio n o f f ice r p e tit io n e d th e d istric t co u rt to ag ain re v o k e C h av ez ’s su p erv ised release an d return h im to p ri so n . T h e d istri ct co u rt conduct ed a r evoca t i on hear i ng on J anuary24, 2007, dur i ng w hi ch the governm ent p r e s e n t e d th e t e s t i mo n yo f Ch a v e z ’ s p r o b a t i o n o f

f i c e ra n d Ch a v e z t e s t i f

i e d i n h i s o wn d e f e n se . A t th e c o n c lu sio n o f th e h e a rin g , the d istric t co u rt f o u n d C h a v e z g u iltyo f

six v io latio n s, in c lu d in g f

a ilu re to f

o llo w th e in stru c tio n s o f h is p ro b a tio n o f

f ice r, f a ilu re to w o rk re g u larl y , three co u n ts of p o sses sion an d u se o f a co n tr o ll ed su b stan ce , an d fa il u re to p a rt ic ip a te in a d ru g a n d a lc o h o l tr e a tm e n t p ro g ra m a s d ir e c te d b yh is p ro b a tio n o f f ic e r. T hes e vi ol at i ons , al l of w hi ch w er e cons i der ed “G r ade C” underthe Sent enci ng-3-

G ui del i nes , combi ned w i th C havez ’ s cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryof V , r es ul t ed i n a s ugges t ed s ent ence of s even t o t hi r t een mont hs under§ 7B 1. 4( a) of the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes . C havez ’ s att orneyas ked the di s tr i ctcourt“t o s tr ongl ycons i deri m pos i ng a p e r i o d o f l e s s th a n th e 1 2 mo n th s . . . r e c o mm e n d [ e d ] ” b yth e p r o b a t i o n o f f i c e r . RO A, V ol . I I I at76. A l t ernat i vel y , C havez ’ s att orneyar gued that“[i ] f the C our t[w a] s i ncl i ned t o i m pos e a s ent ence of ar ound 12 m onths , ” i ts houl d i m pos e “[ a] T w el ve- m onths - andone- days ent ence ” i n or dert o “make [C havez ] el i gi bl e . . . t o r ece i ve good t i m e. ” I d. at 80. T he di s tr i ctcourtadopt ed thi s l att err ecomm endat i on and i m pos ed a s ent ence of “12- m o n th s-a n d -o n e -d a y .” Id . at 8 3 . In d o in g so , the d istric t co u rt sta ted : W e ll, th is is a sa d c a se . I w a s c o n c e rn e d a b o u t th e d e f e n d a n t b a c k in A pr i l , and conc erned abouthi s tr ans i t i on [fr om pr i s on t o s upervi s ed release ]. U n fo rtu n ately , g iven the n ature o f h is prior o ff en ses, [h e] w asn ’t cons i der ed forhal fw ayhous e tr ans i t i on. I do agr ee w i th [def

ens e couns el ] thathe has had a mi xed r ecor d s i nce gett i ng outof cus t ody . B utul t i m at el y , I r eal i ze thatw hi l e thi s defe ndant has had tr ans i t i onal pr obl ems, t o s om e ext enthe has notgone the extr a s t ep to m a k e it w o rk , n o t o n lyb e c a u se o f th e o f f e n se s th a t h e h a s c o m m itt e d in vi ol at i on of the condi t i ons of pr obat i on, butal s o l ack of comm uni cat i on w i th t he – ca ndi d comm uni cat i on w i th the pr obat i on offi ceri n thi s cas e. * * * I do thi nk thathe s houl d be i ncent i vi zed, as m uch as pos s i bl e, t o change h is w ay s an d b eh av e a s m u ch as h e c an , an d that w il l get h im o u t soo n er, perhap s a l i t t l e ov er 10 m on ths. I d. at82- 83 II. C havez ar gues on appea l thatthe di s tr i ctcourterr ed atthe t i m e of s ent enci ng b ec au se it“d id n o t con side r [1 8 U . S . C . ] § 3 5 5 3 (a), eith er g en era ll yo r spe cifica ll y , b ef o re-4-

i m pos i ng s ent ence on [hi m ] , nordi d i ts t at e s uffi ci entr eas ons fori m pos i ng the part i cul ar s e n t e n c e . ” Ap l t . Br . a t4 . Be c a u s e Ch a v e z f a i l e d t o a s s e r tth e s e a r g u me n t s b e l o w, we r evi ew them onl yforpl ai n err or . U ni t ed St at es v. L opez- Fl or es , 444 F. 3d 1218, 1221 ( 10th C i r . 2006) . U nderpl ai n err oranal y s i s , C havez m us tes t abl i s h ( 1) an err or , ( 2) t hat i s pl ai n, (3) that affect s hi s subst anti al ri gh t s, and (4) that s eri ou sl yaffects the fa i rness , i nt e gr i ty , orpu bl i c r e pu t a t i on of j ud i c i a l pr oc e e di ng s . U ni t e d St a t e s v. O l a no , 50 7 U. S. 7 2 5 , 7 3 2 -34 (19 9 3 ). “In im p o sing a se n tenc e f o ll o w ing rev o ca ti o n o f su p erv ised release , a d istri ct co u rt i s r equi r ed t o cons i derboth C hapt er7’ s pol i cys t at ement s , as w el l as a numberof the fac t or s pr ovi ded i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) . ” U ni t ed St at es v. C or dova, 461 F. 3d 1184, 1188 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( i nt ernal ci t at i on om i t t ed) ; s ee a l s o 18 U . S. C . § 3583( e) . T he § 3553( a) fac t or s i ncl ude: [T]he natur e and c i r cumst ance s of the off ens e; the hi s t oryand ch ara cterist ics o f th e d ef en d an t; the n ee d fo r th e se n tenc e im p o sed to af fo rd a d e q u a te d e ter re n c e , p ro tec t th e p u b lic, a n d p ro v id e th e d e f e n d a n t w ith neede d educa t i onal orvocat i onal tr ai ni ng, m edi cal car e orothercorr ect i onal tr eatm enti n t he mosteff ect i ve manner ; pert i nentgui del i nes ; pert i nent pol i cys t at ement s ; the nee d t o avoi d unw arr ant ed s ent enci ng di s par i t i es ; and the nee d t o pr ovi de r es t i tut i on. U ni t ed St at es v. C ontr er as - M art i nez, 409 F. 3d 1236, 1242 n. 3 ( 10th C i r . 2005) . See 18 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ). T h e d istric t co u rt, h o w e v e r, “is n o t re q u ire d to c o n sid e r in d iv id u a lly e a c h f a c to r liste d in § 3 5 5 3 (a ),” n o r m u st it “r e c ite a n ym a g ic w o rd s to sh o w u s th a t it f u lf ill e d its re sp o n sib ili tyto b e m in d f u l o f th e f a c to rs th a t C o n g re ss h a s in stru c ted it t o co n side r. ” U n it ed S tat es v . R o d ri g u ez -Q u intan il la, 4 4 2 F . 3 d 1 2 5 4 , 1 2 5 8 -59 (10 th C ir .-5-

2006) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) , ( addr es s i ng a §3553 ( a) chal l enge t o a s ent ence im p o s e d a f

te r r e v o c a tio n o f

s u p e rv is e d re le a s e .) A ft erexami ni ng the r ecor d on appea l , i ncl udi ng the tr ans cr i ptof the r evoca t i on h ea ri n g , w e c o n clud e tha t th e d istri ct co u rtco m m itted n o erro r i n sen tenc ing C h av ez . It i s appar entfr om the r ecor d, as exempl i fi ed i n the s t at ement s m ade bythe di s tr i ctcour ton the r ecor d i n i m pos i ng s ent ence , thatthe di s tr i ctcourtcons i der ed the r el evant§ 3553( a) fac t or s , i ncl udi ng the natur e and c i r cumst ance s of the vi ol at i ons comm i t t ed byC havez , h is h isto rya n d c h a ra c ter istics , an d th e n e e d f o r th e se n ten c e im p o se d to sim u ltan e o u sly pr ot ectthe publ i c and pr ovi de C havez w i th i ncent i ves t o pos i t i vel yal t erhi s patt ern of b e h a v io r. T h e f

a c t th a t th e d istric t co u rt d id n o t ex p re ss lyc ite to § 3 5 5 3 (a ) o r q u o te ther efr om i n i m pos i ng s ent ence i s i rr el evant . I ti s al s o appar entfr om the r ecor d thatt he di s tr i ctcourtt ook i nt o acc ountthe C hapt erSeven pol i cys t at ement s i n det erm i ni ng w hat sen tenc e to im p o se o n C h av ez . Ind ee d , the s en tenc e a ctua ll yim p o sed b ythe d istri ct co u rt w as w i thi n the s even- t o- thi r t een- m onth r ange s ugges t ed bythe C hapt erSeven pol i cy s t at ement s , and thus i s pr es um pt i vel yr eas onabl e. See U ni t ed St at es v. K r i s t l , 437 F. 3d 1 0 5 0 , 1 0 5 5 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). AF F I RMED . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt M aryB eck Bri s coe C i r cui tJ udge