FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT APRIL11, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ 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. 06- 15894 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 06 -001 01 -C R -W D 0-5 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 O L I V I A W E N D E L L H A L L , 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 M id d le D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( A p r i l11, 2007) B efo re B IR C H , D U B IN A an d C A RN E S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: O l i vi aW e nde l l H a l l appe a l s he rthi r t e e n- m onth s e nt e nc e i m pos e d on2

r e v o c a tio n o f

h e rs up e rv is e d r e le a s e , p u r s u a n t to 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 3 ( g ) . W e A F F I R M. I . B AC KG RO UN D F o llo w in g h e rg u ilty p le ato b a n kf r au d in v io la tio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 4 4 in the W e s t e rn D i s tr i c tof

N e w Y ork, H a l l w a s s e nt e nc e d i n 2004 t o thi r ty - one m onths of

i m pr i s onm e nt , f

ol l ow e d by af

i ve - y e a rt e rm of

s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e , a nd re st i tut i on i n the am ou ntof $1 34 , 25 5. 51 . T he cond i t i on s of H al l ’ s s up ervi se d re l ea se i ncl ud ed (1) the m andat ory c on di t i on thatshe notcom m i tanother c ri m e; (2) the m andat ory c on di t i on thatshe r ef ra i n from the un l aw ful use of acontrol l ed s ubs t a nc e ; ( 3) the m a nda t ory c ondi t i on tha ts he s ubm i tt o pe r i odi c drug t e s t i ng; ( 4) th e st an d ard co n d i t i o n th atsh e w o rkreg u l arl y ata l aw fu l o ccu p at i o n , u n l ess e x c u s e d b y th e p r o b a tio n o f f ic e r ; a n d ( 5 ) th e s p e c ia l c o n d itio n th a t s h e p a r tic ip a te i n a subst ance abuse program . H al l ’ s t erm of supervi se d rel ea se began o n O ct ob er 26 , 20 05 . In A ug ust20 06 , H al l w as tra nsfe rr ed t o the M i dd l e D i stri ctof G eorgi a. O n S e pt e m be r26, 2006, the U ni t e d S t a t e s P r oba t i on O f f i c e pe t i t i one d the di stri ctcourtfor aw arra ntt o arr es tH al l because s he had v i ol at ed the t erm s of her supervi se d rel ea se . S peci fi ca l l y, the re vo ca t i on pet i t i on char ged thatH al l had v io la te d th e te rm s o f

h e rs u p e rv is e d r e le a s e b y ( 1 ) f a ilin g to w o rkr e g u la r ly a t a l a w f ul oc c upa t i on, be c aus e s he w a s t e rm i na t e d f r om tw o pl a c e s of

e m pl oy m e nt3

a nd ha d notobt a i ne d a c c e pt abl e e m pl oy m e nta f t e rhe rt e rm i na t i on ( vi ol a t i on one ) ; ( 2) a l l e ge dl y vi ol a t i ng af e de r a l , s t a t e , orl oc a l l a w on A ugus t11, 2006, f or the c r i m e of

obs truc t i on of

al a w e nf

or c e m e ntof

f i c e r( vi ol a t i on tw o); (3) posse ss i ng or usi ng a c on trol l ed subst ance , as evi denced by her s ubm i s s i on of

ur i ne s a m pl e s w hi c h t e s t e d pos i t i ve f orthe pr e s e nc e of

c oc a i ne on M a y 2 6 , 2 0 0 6 , J u n e 9 , 2 0 0 6 , a n d J u ly 1 1 , 2 0 0 6 ( v io la tio n th r e e ) ; a n d ( 4 ) f a ilin g to part i ci pat e i n an app roved sub st ance abuse tre atm entprog ra m , si nce s he w as di s c ha r ge d f

r om the R i ve rE dge B e ha vi or a l H e a l th C e nt e rbe c aus e of no ncom pl i ance (vi ol at i on four). D uri ng the re vo ca t i on hear i ng , H al l adm i tt ed h av i n g a su b st an ce ab u se p ro b l em , w h i ch p ro m p t ed th e d i stri ctj u d g e t o ask w hether s he w as adm i tt i ng thatshe had vi ol at ed the t erm s of hersupervi se d r e le a s e , to w h ic h H a ll r e p lie d , “Y e s , I d o .” R 3 a t 5 . T he pr oba t i on of

f i c e rpr e pa r e d aR e voc a t i on R e por ts t a t i ng tha tU . S . S . G . §§ 7 B 1 .1 - 7 B 1 .5 p r o v id e d n o n - b in d in g s e n te n c in g a lte rn a tiv e s f o rH a ll. P u r s u a n t to U . S . S . G . § 7 B 1. 1(a) (3)( A ) a nd (B ), the prob at i on offi ce r f ou nd thatH al l had com m i tt ed a G ra de C vi ol at i on . T he j ud ge foun d thatH al l had v i ol at ed her supervi se d rel ea se ; un der U . S . S . G . § 7 B 1. 3(a) (2), he coul d revok e hersupervi se d r e l e a s e , e xt e nd the t e rm of he rs upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e , orm odi f y the c ondi t i ons of s u p e rv is io n . T h e p r o b a tio n o f f ic e ra ls o n o te d th a t, p u r s u a n t to 1 8 U .S .C . §4

35 83 (g)( 1), i f the j ud ge foun d thatH al l had v i ol at ed a c on di t i on of her s up ervi se d re l ea se by bei ng i n p osse ss i on of a c on trol l ed subst ance , i thad t o t erm i nat e her supervi se d rel ea se and requi re her t o serve a t erm of i m pri sonm entno tt o exceed the st atut ory m axi m um t erm of i m pri sonm entun der 18 U . S . C . § 3 58 3(e) (3), w hi ch w as three ye ar s. U nd er18 U . S . C . § 3 58 3(d), the j ud ge had t o con si der w hether th e a v ailab il ity o f a p p ro p riate s u b stan ce ab u se trea tm en t p ro g ra m s, o r H all’ s c urr e ntorpa s tpa r t i c i pa t i on i n s uc h pr ogr a m s , w a rr a nt e d a n e xc e pt i on f r om the m a n d a to ry r e v o c a tio n p r o v is io n o f § 3 5 8 3 ( g ) ( 1 ) . A d d itio n a lly , u n d e rU .S .S .G . § 7B 1. 4, the prob at i on offi ce r f ou nd that , because H al l had com m i tt ed a G ra de C vi ol at i on and h ercr i m i nal hi st ory c at egory a tthe t i m e of the ori gi nal offe nse w as V , h erre co m m en d ed ra n g e o f im p riso n m en t w as se v en to th irteen m o n th s. H all’ s c o u n s e l d id n o t o b

je c t to th e s e c a lc u la tio n s . T he j udge f

ur the ror de r e d H a l l t o pa y i m m e di a t e l y the unpa i d ba l a nc e of $134, 255. 51 of

the or i gi na l r e s t i tut i on tha tw a s i m pos e d i n he runde r l y i ng conv i ct i on . A dd i t i on al l y, the j ud ge foun d thatno exce pt i on t o the m andat ory r e voc a t i on pr ovi s i on of § 3583( g) w a s w a rr a nt e d, be c aus e of H a l l ’ s ongoi ng coca i ne use des pi t e herpart i ci pat i on i n a subst ance abuse tre atm entprog ra m d u rin g h erterm o f s u p er v ised re leas e. A lth o u g h th e d istrict j u d g e g av e H all’ s c ouns e l a n oppor tuni ty t o obj e c tt o a ny of hi s f i ndi ngs , de f

e ns e c ouns e l ha d no5

obj e c t i ons . T hi s appe a l f ol l ow e d. I I . DI S CUS S I ON O n ap p e a l, H a ll f

ir s t a r g u e s th e d is tr ic t ju d g e ab u s e d h is d is c r e tio n in r e voki ng he rs upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e be c aus e the r e c or d of the r e voc a t i on pr oc e e di ng w a s i ns uf

f i c i e ntt o e s t abl i s h a ny of the i ndi vi dua l vi ol a t i ons a s s e r t e d i n the r e voc a t i on pe t i t i on. S pe c i f i c a l l y , s he c l a i m s tha ti tc a nnotbe de t e rm i ne d f r om the r e c o r d e x a c tly w h a t c o n d itio n o f s u p e rv is e d r e le a s e s h e a d m itte d v io la tin g . H a ll m a i nt a i ns tha t , a tthe r e voc a t i on he a r i ng, s he de ni e d tha ts he w a s gui l ty of ob struct i ng a l aw enforce m entoffi ce r a nd deni ed the charge thatshe f ai l ed t o w ork orpa r t i c i pa t e i n as ubs t a nc e abus e pr ogr a m be c aus e s he w a s pr e c l ude d f r om doi ng s o , s in c e h e rw r o n g f

u l d e te n tio n b e g a n o n J u ly 2 9 , 2 0 0 6 . H a ll c o n te n d s th a t, a lth o u g h s h e a c k n o w le d g e d h a v in g ad ru g p r o b le m a n d r e q u e s te d tr e a tm e n t f o rit, s he di d nota dm i tt o the a l l e ge d us e of c oc a i ne on a ny of

the da t e s c ha r ge d i n the pe t i t i on ora ny othe rs pe c i f i c t i m e . A ddi t i ona l l y , H a l l a s s e r t s tha tthe r e w a s no other r ec ord evi dence s up po rt i ng fi nd i ng s by aprepon dera nce of the evi dence that s he vi ol a t e d a ny one of

the i ndi vi dua l vi ol a t i ons s e touti n the pe t i t i on. S ec on d, H al l ar gu es thatthe di stri ctj ud ge abused hi s di sc re t i on w hen, af t er de t e rm i ni ng tha ts he ha d vi ol a t e d the c ondi t i ons of he rs upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e , he f ound thatno exce pt i on t o the m andat ory r evocat i on prov i si on s of § 35 83 (g) w as6

w a rr a nt e d i n he rc a s e . T hi r d, H a l l a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tj udge e rr e d i n s e nt e nc i ng h e rb e c au s e h e d id n o t c o n s id e ro re x p lic itly m e n tio n th e s ta tu to ry f a c to r s s e t f

o r th i n 18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) a nd tha the f a i l e d t o s pe c i f

y he ra dvi s ory S e nt e nc i ng G u id e lin e s r a n g e d u r in g th e r e v o c a tio n h e a r in g . S h e f u r th e ra r g u e s th a t it is un cl ea r w hether the di stri ctj ud ge consi dere d the se nt enci ng ra ng e or the po l i cy s t a t e m e nt s of

C hapt e r7 of

the S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s . C ons e que nt l y , s he c ont e nds th atth ere i s n o w ay t o d et erm i n e w h eth er h er sen t en ce i s reaso n ab l e. W e ad d ress e a c h a r g u m e n t s e r ia tim . A . R ev o cat i o n o f S u p erv i sed R el ease B ec ause H al l has r ai se d the di stri ctj ud ge’ s dec i si on t o revok e hersupervi se d r e le a s e a n d im p o s e s e n te n c e f o rth e f ir s t tim e o n ap p e a l, it is r e v ie w e d f o rp la in error. U ni t ed S t at es v. G re sham , 32 5 F . 3d 12 62 , 12 65 (11 C i r. 20 03 ). U nd er th pl a i n- e rr orr e vi e w , w e c orr e c ta n e rr orw he n i t( 1) oc c urr e d, ( 2) the e rr orw a s pl a i n, ( 3) the e rr ora f

f e c t 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. O l a no, 507 U . S . 725, 732- 36, 113 S . C t . 1770, 1777- 79 ( 1993) , a nd ( 4) “ ‘ 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 , ’ ” i d. a t736, 113 S .C t. a t 1 7 7 9 ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . I f adi s tr i c tj udge “ f

i nds by apr e ponde r a nc e of the e vi de nc e tha tthe defe nd antvi ol at ed a c on di t i on of supervi se d rel ea se , ” he or s he m ayre vo ke a t erm7

o f s u p e rv is e d r e le a s e , a f

te rc o n s id e r in g th e f

a c to r s s e t f

o r th in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3553( a ) ( 1) , ( a ) ( 2) ( B ) - ( D ) , a nd ( a ) ( 4) - ( 7) , a nd i m pos e as e nt e nc e of i m pr i s onm e nt f orthe vi ol a t i on. 18 U . S . C . § 3583( e ) ( 3) . T he t e rm i m pos e d c a nnote xc e e d the s ta tu to ry m a x im u m , w h ic h is d e te rm in e d b y th e g r a d e o f th e v io la tio n . I d . R ev o cat i o n o f su p erv i sed rel ease i s m an d at o ry i f th e d efen d an tp o ssesses a c o n tr o l l e d s u b s t a n c e i n v i o l a t i o n o f th e c o n d i t i o n s o f

s u p e rv i s e d r e l e a s e . 1 8 U . S. C. § 3583( g) ( 1) . C hapt e r7 of the S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s gove rns vi ol a t i ons of supervi se d rel ea se and con t ai ns po l i cyst at em ent s, on e of w hi ch prov i des r e c o m m e n d e d r a n g e s o f im p r is o n m e n t ap p lic ab le u p o n r e v o c a tio n . U .S .S .G . § 7B 1. 4. S pe c i f

i c a l l y , the r e c om m e nde d s e nt e nc i ng r a nge f oraG r a de C vi ol a t i on w i th ac r i m i na l hi s t ory c a t e gory of V i s s e ve n t o thi r t e e n m onths . I d. W e ha ve c ons i s t e nt l y he l d tha tthe pol i c y s t a t e m e nt s of C hapt e r7 a r e m e r e l y a dvi s ory a nd no tbi nd i ng . U ni t ed S t at es v. A gu i l l ar d, 21 7 F . 3d 13 19 , 13 20 (11th C i r. 20 00 ) ( per c u r ia m ) . T he r e w a s no e rr or , pl a i n orothe rw i s e , i n the di s tr i c tj udge ’ s r e voc a t i on of H al l ’ s s up ervi se d rel ea se by re l yi ng up on her a dm i ss i on t o h ersupervi se d rel ea se v io lati o n s. T h e p lain lan g u ag e o f § 3 5 8 3 en ti tl ed th e ju d g e to re v o k e H all’ s supervi se d rel ea se i f s he vi ol at ed a c on di t i on of her r el ea se . F urther, the j ud ge w as r e qui r e d t o r e voke H a l l ’ s s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e upon af i ndi ng tha ts he pos s e s s e d aTo the extent that Hall argues that the district judg e violated F ederal Rule of Criminal 1 Procedure 11, her

argument is mispl ace d beca use Rule 11 does not apply to revoc ation hearings. United States v. J ohns, 625 F.2d 1175, 1176 (5th Cir. Unit B 1980) (holdingthat Rule 11 proce eding s areinapplicable to probation-revocation proc eeding s). 8 control l ed subst ance . C on tra ryt o H al l ’ s a ss ert i on thatthere w as no re cord evi dence s up po rt i ng fi nd i ng s by aprepon dera nce of the evi dence thatshe vi ol at ed a ny one of

the i ndi vi dua l vi ol a t i ons s e touti n the pe t i t i on, s he a dm i tt e d t o vi ol a t i ng the c ondi t i ons of

he rs upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e . H a l l a c know l e dge d tha ts he ha d adrug pr obl e m s i nc e s he w a s s i xt e e n y e a r s ol d, a nd, w he n the j udge a dvi s e d H a l l tha ts he a dm i tt e d t o vi ol a t i ng the t e rm s of he rs upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e , w hi c h i nc l ude d c oc a i ne u s e , s h e r e s p o n d e d a f

f irm a tiv e ly . T h u s , w h ile it ap p e a r s th a t H a ll in itia lly a tt e m pt e d t o de ny the c ha r ge s tha ts he f a i l e d t o w ork r e gul a r l y a tal a w f ul oc c upa t i on a nd tha ts he c om m i tt e d the c r i m e of obs truc t i ng al a w e nf

or c e m e nt offi ce r, the re cord ref

l ec t s thatH al l adm i tt ed t o v i ol at i ng the cond i t i on s of her su p erv i sed rel ease, an d , sp eci fi cal l y, th e u se o f co cai n e. A cco rd i n g l y, b ecau se H a l l ’ s a dm i s s i on s uppor t e d the j udge ’ s f i ndi ng tha ts he ha d vi ol a t e d the c ondi t i ons of he rs upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e by apr e ponde r a nc e of the e vi de nc e , the r e w a s no e rr orby the di stri ctj ud ge i n revok i ng H al l ’ s s up ervi se d rel ea se . 1 B . E xc e pt i on t o M a nda t ory R e voc a t i on H al l al so ar gu es thatthe di stri ctj ud ge abused hi s di sc re t i on w hen, af t er de t e rm i ni ng tha ts he ha d vi ol a t e d the c ondi t i ons of he rs upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e , he f ound9

tha tno e xc e pt i on t o the m a nda t ory r e voc a t i on pr ovi s i ons of 18 U . S . C . § 3583( g) w a s w a rr a n te d in h e rc a s e . S h e c o n te n d s th a t th e r e c o r d w a rr a n te d a n e x c e p tio n to m a nda t ory r e voc a t i on be c aus e no c ha l l e nge w a s m a de t o H a l l ’ s s t a t e m e nt s a tthe rev o cat i o n h eari n g th atsh e w as p recl u d ed fro m p art i ci p at i n g i n a su b st an ce ab u se pr ogr a m be c aus e of

he rde t e nt i on be gi nni ng on J ul y 29, 2006 a nd tha ts he att em pt ed bu tw as un abl e t o p art i ci pat e i n a 60 0-ho ur drug prog ra m du ri ng her previ ou s i ncar ce ra t i on . H al l began servi ng her s up ervi se d rel ea se t erm on O ct ob er 25, 2005, buts he w a s notr e f e rr e d t o the s ubs t a nc e abus e tr e a tm e ntpr ogr a m a tthe R iv e rE d g e B e h a v io r a l H e a lth C e n te ru n til M a y 2 0 0 6 , a n d tw o o f th e d ru g te s ts r e f e r e n c e d in th e p e titio n p r e d a te h e rf ir s t a d m is s io n in to th a t tr e a tm e n t p r o g r a m . N othi ng i n the P S I pre pare d for the ori gi nal se nt enci ng i nd i ca t es thata s ub st ance ab u s e tr e a tm e n t p r o g r a m w a s a v a ilab le to H a ll o rth a t s h e f a ile d to p a r tic ip a te in s u c h ap r o g r a m . U nde r§ 3583( d) , the s e nt e nc i ng j udge shal l consi der w hether the avai l abi l i ty of app ropri at e s ub st ance ab u se treatm en tp ro g ram s, o r an i n d i v i d u al ’ s cu rren to r p ast p a r tic ip a tio n in s u c h p r o g r a m s , w a rr a n ts a n e x c e p tio n in a c c or da nc e w i th U ni t e d S t a t e s S e nt e nc i ng C om m i s s i on gui de l i ne s f

r om the rul e of

s e c t i on 3583( g) w he n c ons i de r i ng a n y a c tio n a g a in s t ad e f e n d a n t w h o f

a ils ad ru g te s t. 18 U . S . C . § 3 58 3(d). B ec ause H al l ’ s c ou nsel di d n otm ake thi s obj ec t i on i n d i stri ct10

c o u r t , w e r e v i e w h e rr e v o c a t i o n o f s u p e rv i s e d r e l e a s e f

o rp l a i n e rr o r . G r e s h a m, 3 2 5 F .3 d a t 1 2 6 5 . T h e d is tr ic t ju d g e d id n o t p la in ly e rrin f in d in g th a t H a ll’s c ir c u m s ta n c e s d id n o t w a rr a n t a n e x c e p tio n to th e m a n d a to ry r e v o c a tio n p r o v is io n o f § 3 5 8 3 ( g ) . F i rs t , because H al l adm i tt ed thatshe c on t i nu ed t o u se i l l egal drug s, the j ud ge w as r e qui r e d t o r e voke H a l l ’ s s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e . T he j udge br i e f l y s t a t e d tha tno e xc e pt i on w a s w a rr a nt e d i n H a l l ’ s c a s e , ba s e d on he rongoi ng us e of c oc a i ne de s pi t e he rpa r t i c i pa t i on i n as ubs t a nc e abus e tr e a tm e ntpr ogr a m dur i ng he rt e rm of su p er v ised re leas e. B ef o re m ak in g th is d eterm in atio n , th e ju d g e h ea rd H all’ s st at em ent s thatshe c urre nt l y had a drug p robl em w hi ch began w hen she w as si xt ee n yea rs ol d, she use d cocai ne i n v i ol at i on of the t erm s of hersupervi se d r e l e a s e , a nd s he w a s t e rm i na t e d f r om he rs ubs t a nc e abus e tr e a tm e ntpr ogr a m on S e p te m b e r6 , 2 0 0 6 , a lb e it b e c au s e o f h e rin c a r c e r a tio n b e g in n in g o n J u ly 2 9 , 2 0 0 6 . A l though the j udge s t a t e d tha the c oul d m a ke onl y ar e c om m e nda t i on t o the B ur e au of

P r i s ons r e ga r di ng H a l l ’ s r e que s tt o be e nr ol l e d i n i t s 600- hourdrug p r o g r a m , th e r e is n o in d ic a tio n th a t th e ju d g e d id n o t r e c o g n iz e h e h a d d is c r e tio n to o r d e re n r o llm e n t in as u b s ta n c e ab u s e p r o g r a m in lie u o f r e v o c a tio n . C ons e que nt l y , the r e c or d r e f l e c t s tha tthe di s tr i c tj udge c ons i de r e d H a l l ’ s drug tre atm ent , as di re ct ed by § 3 58 3(d), m ade aspec i fi c rul i ng thather c i rc um st ance s11

d id n o t w a rr a n t a n e x c e p tio n to th e m a n d a to ry r e v o c a tio n p r o v is io n , a n d s ta te d h is re as on s f or m aki ng thatrul i ng . A cc ordi ng l y, there w as no pl ai n err or i n the di stri ct j udge ’ s de c i s i on tha tthe r e w a s no e xc e pt i on w a rr a nt e d t o H a l l ’ s r e voc a t i on of s u p e rv is e d r e le a s e . II I. R ea sonabl enes s of S ent ence H al l cont ends thatthe di stri ctj ud ge erre d i n sent enci ng her t o thi rt ee n m o n th s o f i m p ri so n m en ti m p o sed o n rev o cat i o n o f h er su p erv i sed rel ease b ecau se he di d notc ons i de rnore xpl i c i t l y m e nt i on the s t a tut ory f a c t or s s e tf

or th i n 18 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) o ro th e rw is e p r o v id e ar e a s o n f o rth e s e n te n c e im p o s e d . W e r e vi e w as e nt e nc e 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 f

or re as on abl enes s. U ni t ed S t at es v. S w ee t i ng , 43 7 F . 3d 11 05 , 11 06 -07 (11 th C i r. 2 0 0 6 ) ( p e rc u r i a m ) . Wh e n ad e f e n d a n tf a i l s t o r a i s e a n i s s u e i n d i s tr i c tc o u r t , we r e v ie w f o rp la in e rr o r . A g u illa r d , 2 1 7 F .3 d a t 1 3 2 0 . A l tho ug h H al l ’ s c ou nsel fa i l ed t o o bj ec tt o the re as on abl enes s of her se nt ence atthe re vo ca t i on se nt enci ng hear i ng , her s ent ence w as re as on abl e, because the di stri ctj ud ge had reas on abl e c ause t o revok e hersupervi se d rel ea se , b a s e d o n h e ra d m is s io n o f v io la tin g th e te rm s o f

h e rs up e rv is e d r e le a s e . A dd i t i on al l y, i n a ca se i n w hi ch the di stri ctj ud ge excee ded the C hapt er7 re com m ended range i n i m po si ng se nt ence , w e r ec og ni ze d that“ ‘ [ i ] f s up ervi se d12

re l ea se i s s ub se qu ent l y r evok ed un der 18 U . S . C . § 3 58 3(e) , the st atut e a l so re qu i re s thatthe §3 55 3(a) fa ct ors be c on si dere d. H ow ever , w hen revocat i on of supervi se d r e le a s e is m a n d a to ry u n d e r1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 3 ( g ) , th e s ta tu te d o e s n o t req u i re c ons i de r a t i on of

the § 3553( a ) f

a c t or s . ’ ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B r ow n, 224 F . 3d 1237, 12 41 (11th C i r. 20 00 ) ( ci t at i on om i tt ed). S in c e H a ll w a s s u b

je c t to m a n d a to ry r e v o c a tio n b e c au s e s h e a d m itte d to c oc a i ne us e i n vi ol a t i on of he rs upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e , the di s tr i c tj udge w a s not r e qui r e d t o c ons i de rthe § 3553( a ) f a c t or s i n i m pos i ng am a nda t ory r e voc a t i on of s u p e rv is e d r e le a s e a n d te rm o f im p r is o n m e n t u n d e r1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 3 ( g ) . T h e r e f o r e , e v e n if

th e d is tr ic t ju d g e d id n o t c o n s id e rth e § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f a c to r s in s e nt e nc i ng H a l l , he di d notc om m i te rr or . A ddi t i ona l l y , H a l l ’ s a c tua l s e nt e nc e of thi rt ee n m on ths fa l l s w i thi n the S ent enci ng G ui del i nes r ange. H al l ’ s s up ervi se d r e l e a s e vi ol a t i on w a s aG r a de C vi ol a t i on a nd he rc r i m i na l hi s t ory c a t e gory a tthe tim e o f th e o r ig in a l o f

f e n s e w a s V . H a l l ’ s s e nt e nc e w a s w i thi n the di s tr i c tj udge ’ s s t a tut ory pow e r , be c aus e he di d note xc e e d the s t a tut ory m a xi m um of thr e e y e a r s of

i m pr i s onm e nt . A l though th e d is tr ic t ju d g e d id n o t m e n tio n H a ll’s a d v is o ry G u id e lin e s r a n g e o re x p lic itly m ent i on the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors, the re cord i nd i ca t es thatthe j ud ge consi dere d the § 35 53 (a ) f ac t or of defendant ’ s hi st ory e vi denced by hi s s peci fi c rul i ng thatan13

exce pt i on t o the m andat ory r evocat i on prov i si on of § 3 58 3(g) w as no tw arra nt ed ba s e d upon he r“ ongoi ng us e of c oc a i ne . ” R 3 a t6. S i nc e the di s tr i c tj udge di d not e x c e e d th e r e c o m m e n d e d r a n g e , th e r e w a s n o n e e d f o rh im to in d ic a te h is consi dera t i on of the C hapt er7 p ol i cyst at em ent s. T he re cord do es no ti nd i ca t e that the di stri ctj ud ge consi dere d the ra ng es i n U . S . S . G . § 7 B 1. 4, bu tbecause he w as notr e qui r e d t o do s o, the r e w a s no e rr or . A c c or di ngl y , the j udge i m pos e d a r e a s onabl e s e nt e nc e , w he n he s e nt e nc e d H a l l t o thi r t e e n y e a r s of i m pr i s onm e ntf

or v io la tin g th e te rm s o f

h e rs u p e rv is e d r e le a s e .

I I I . CONCL US I ON H a l l ha s appe a l e d he rthi r t e e n- m onth s e nt e nc e i m pos e d f ors e ve r a l vi ol a t i ons o f th e te rm s o f

h e rs u p e rv is e d r e le a s e . A s w e h a v e e x p la in e d , th e d is tr ic t ju d g e d id notpl a i nl y e rrby f

i ndi ng tha tH a l l vi ol a t e d he rs upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e by us i ng a control l ed subst ance , because s he adm i tt ed thatshe had do ne so. N ei ther di d h e e rr i n de t e rm i ni ng tha ta n e xc e pt i on t o the m a nda t ory r e voc a t i on pr ovi s i ons of 18 U . S . C . §3583( g) w a s notw a rr a nt e d i n H a l l ’ s c a s e be c aus e of he rongoi ng c oc a i ne use des pi t e herpart i ci pat i on i n a subst ance abuse tre atm entprog ra m du ri ng her t erm of supervi se d rel ea se . B ec ause the di stri ctj ud ge w as no tre qu i re d t o con si der the 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors w hen m andat ori l y r evok i ng a t erm of supervi se d r e le a s e a n d im p o s in g im p r is o n m e n t u n d e r§ 3 5 8 3 ( g ) , h e d id n o t e rrin h is14

i m pos i t i on of

H a l l ’ s s e nt e nc e . A c c or di ngl y , H a l l ’ s s e nt e nc e , i m pos e d on rev o cat i o n o f h er su p erv i sed rel ease, i s A FFI R M ED .