FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MARCH 14, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 13 01 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 5 :0 7- cr-0 00 24 -HL-CWH-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff - App el le e,

ve rs us CHRIS TOPHER JACKSON, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt- App el la nt .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma rch 14 , 20 11 ) Befo re HULL, MARTIN an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: The pri orop in io n o f th e p an el is va cat edan d t he fol lo win g o pi ni on is is su edin it s p la ce:

Ch ris to ph er J ack so n p le ad edgu il ty to v io la ti ng 18 U.S.C. §§ 37 1, 5 45 , and 23 20 (a) an d was sen te nc edto 30 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t t o b e fo ll owe d b y 3 years of supe rv is edrel eas e. Afte r he was re le as edfro m pri so n, J ack so n v io la te d s ev eral
co nd it io ns of h is supe rv is edrel eas e. Ja ck so n fa il edto co m pl y with t he ord ers of hi s p ro ba ti on off

ic er, ad m it te d t o s m ok in g m ari juan a, an d m ad e th reat s t o a n of fic ia l atth e Geo rg iaDepartment o f Rev enue an d h is pro ba ti on off ic er. Bas edon th es e v io la ti on s, the pro ba ti on off ic e p et it io ne d t he di stric t co urt t o re vo ke Ja ck so n’s s up erv is edrel eas e. At the rev oc at io n h eari ng Jac ks on st ip ul at edto th e vi ol at io ns an d e xp la in edth atth e m or e se rio us vi ol at io ns –h is th reat s ag ai ns t s ta te
an d fe de ral off

ic ers –we re the res ul t o f hi s an ge r m an ag em en t p ro bl em s. Th e di st ric t co urt re vo ke d J ack so n’s s up erv is edrel eas e an d re m an de d h im to pri so n fo r a te rm of 2 1 m on th s. J ack so n app eal s fr om th e rev oc at io n a ndarg ue s tha t the di st ric t co urt erredby notve rif y in g t ha t h e an d h is co un se l h adreadan d d is cu ss ed th e p ro ba ti on off

ic e’s rev oc at io n re po rt a ndth athi s t erm of i m pr is on m en t is
subs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le
. I. W e rev ie w a term

of i m pr is on m en t i m

po se d fo ll owi ng rev oc at io n fo r reas on ab le ne ss . Uni te d Sta tes v. S wee ti ng , 43 7 F .3d11 05 , 11 06 –0 7 (1 1t h C ir.
220 06 ). W e fi rs t l oo k t o wh ethe r th e d is tri ctco urt co m m it te d a ny sig ni fic an t pr oc edur al erro r. Uni te d Sta tes v. Pugh , 51 5 F .3d11 79 , 11 90 (11 th Ci r. 20 08 ). W e th enex am in e th e subs ta nt iv e rea so nabl en es s o f th e te rm of i m pr is on m en t. Id
. II. Ja ck so n a rg ue s t ha t h is “ se nt en ce” i s p ro cedur al ly unr eas on ab le be cau se th e di st ric t co urt erredby notve rif y in g t ha t h e an d h is co un se l h adreadan d d is cu ss ed th e p ro ba ti on off

ic e’s rev oc at io n re po rt. The crux of J ack so n’s ar gu m en t i s t hi s: 1 th e Fed eral Ru le of C riminal Pro cedur e th atgo ve rn s an in it ia l s en te nc in g a ls o ap pl ie s t o s up erv is ed -rel eas e-re vo cat io n h eari ng s. We di sa gr ee. Ru le 32 , whi chgo ve rn s s en te nc in g p ro cedur e, requi res th atth e p ro ba ti on of fic e cre at e a p res en te nc e rep ort an d, atsen te nc in g, a d is tri ctco urt m us t v eri fy th atth e d efen dantan d h is co un se l h av e rea d a nddi sc us se d t ha t re po rt. Fe d. R. Cri m . P. 32 . Rul e 3 2.1 —t he rul e o f cri m in al pro cedur e th atgo ve rn s re vo cat io n he ari ng s— do es no t re qu ire th atth e d is tri ctco urt v eri fy th atth e d efen da ntan d h is
co un se l re vi ew th e p ro ba ti on off ic er’s rev oc at io n re po rt. In de ed , itdo es no t ev en requi re tha t the pro ba ti on off ic e p ro du ce s uc h arep ort. Fed . R. Cri m . P. 32 .1

Be causeJ ackson r aises this argument for the f irst time on appeal, we revie w for pla in 1 err or. United States v. Aguillard, 217 F.3d 1319, 1320 ( 11th Cir. 2000). To preva il, J ackson must establish (1) that there was e rror ; (2) that it was plain; and ( 2) that it aff ecte d his substantial rights. Id. 3It i s cl ear f ro m th e la ng ua ge of Rul e 3 2 t ha t i t d oe s n otap pl y to rev oc at io n he ari ng s. Whena de fen da ntis im pr is on edup on rev oc at io n o f supe rv is edrel eas e, he is st il l s erv in g p artof h is ori gi na l s en te nc e. Cf . Uni te d Sta tes v. Woo ds , 12 7 F .3d99 0, 9 93 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ) (h ol di ng th atrev oc at io n o f pr ob at io n i s p artof de fen da nt ’s ori gi na l s en te nc e). Wha t Ru le 32 requi res is th at , at se nt en ci ng , th e di st ric t ju dg e v eri fy

th atth e d efen da ntan d h is lawyer hav e rev ie wedan d d is cu ss ed th e pr e se nt en ce re po rt. Be cau se supe rv is edrel eas e is pa rt o f a d efen da nt ’s
or ig in al sen te nc e, a rev oc at io n h eari ng oc cu rs aft er s en te nc in g. Fu rth erm or e, be cau se a rev oc at io n h eari ng oc cu rs aft er s en te nc in g, a r ev oc at io n re po rt c an no t be a pr es en te nc e rep ort. Ru le 32 (i) (1 )(A) d oe s n otap pl y to rev oc at io n h eari ng s. Andwe canfin d n o s up po rt f ortra ns pl an ti ng Ru le 32 ’s requi rem en ts to rev oc at io n he ari ng s h el d u nd er Ru le 32 .1. Acco rd in gl y , th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err. III. Ja ck so n a ls o arg ue s tha t the term of i m pr is on m en t i m

po se d b y th e co urt fo ll owi ng rev oc at io n was subs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le . Whe th er a t erm of im pr is on m en t i s s ub st an ti ve ly unr eas on ab le is ess en ti al ly a qu es ti on whet he r th e di st ric t co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n. Pugh , 51 5 F .3dat 1 17 9. Al th ou gh we do no t pr es um e th ata te rm

of i m pr is on m en t, l ik e th is on e, th atis withi n t he pro pe rly cal cu la te d g ui de li ne s ra ng e is reas on ab le , we ord in ari ly exp ectth atis th e cas e. 4Uni te d Sta tes v. Hu nt , 52 6 F .3d73 9, 7 46 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). Bu t ev enif aterm of im pr is on m en t i s wi th in th e g ui de li ne s, i t m us t al so , con si de rin g t he to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces , ach ie ve th e p ur po se s o f 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a). Gal l v. Un it ed 2 St at es , 55 2 U.S. 3 8, 5 1 (2 00 7) ; Pugh , 51 5 F .3dat 1 19 1. Th e p arty ch al le ng in g a se nt en ce b ears th e b ur de n o f es tabl is hi ng it s u nr eas on ab le ne ss . Pugh , 51 5 F .3dat 11 89
. Ja ck so n a rg ue s t ha t the sen te nc e is un reas on ab le be cau se itfai ls to acco un t fo r orto ad dr es s t he roo t o f hi s p ro bl em s—hi s i nabi li ty to co ntro l h is an ge r. Ja ck so n s ug ge st s t ha t a m or e le ni en t s en te nc e wou ldhe lp all ev ia te hi s an ge r
m an ag em en t p ro bl em

or tha t, i n a ny case , th e d is tri ctco urt s ho ul d h av e im po se d a
co nd it io n t ha t h e rec ei ve an ge r m an ag em en t treat m en t. At the rev oc at io n h eari ng , th e d is tri ctjud ge co ns id eredan d a ddres se d Ja ck so n’s ar gu m en ts ab ou t h is an ge r m an ag em en t p ro bl em . Jac ks on do es no t
The purpose s of § 3553(a ) ar e: 2 (1) the na

ture a nd circ umstances of

the offe nse and the history and cha rac teristics of the de fenda

nt; (2) the nee d to refle ct the seriousness of the off ense, to promote respe ct for the law, and to pr ovide just punishment for the offe nse; (3) the need for de terre nce; ( 4) the ne ed to protec t the public; (5) the ne ed to provide the defe ndant with educational or vocational trainingor medica l car e; (6) the kinds of sentenc es ava ilable; (7) the Sente ncingGuidelines ra ng e; (8) the pertinent policy statements of the Sente ncingCommi ssion; (9) the nee d to avoid unwanted sentenc ing dispa

rities; and (10) the need to pr ovide re stitut ion to victims
. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 5of

fer a ny exp la na ti on ho w a les se r te rm of i m pr is on m en t wo ul d a dd res s h is an ge r
m an ag em en t p ro bl em . Andhe ha s n otest ab li sh edth atth e d is tri ctco urt’s
rev oc at io n o rd er h as de ni edhi m th e ab il it y

to pa rti ci pa te in an ge r m an ag em en t pr og ram s dur in g h is in carc erat io n. Acco rd in gl y , we con cl ud e th atth e d is tri ct
co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n re vo ki ng Jac ks on ’s supe rv is edrel eas e an d im po si ng a 21 -m on th term

of i m pr is on m en t. Bec au se we co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt co m m it te d n o p ro cedur al erro r an d t ha t i t d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n, we af firm . AFFIRMED.

6