FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT AUGUST 4, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

N o. 07- 1496 5 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D.C. Dock etNo. 0 7- 00 17 8- CR-T-1 7- TGW UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us TIMOTHY WAYNE FERGUSON, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the Middle District of Florida

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

(A ug us t 4, 200 8) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, CA RN E S an d B A RKE T T , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:The wa rra nt issued for De fenda

nt’s arr est for violation of supe rvised re lease included two new 1 substantive violations--coc aine possession and tampering with e vidence --a nd a number of tec hnical v i o l at i o n s . T h e go v ern m en t d i d n o tp urs u e t h e c o ca i n e p o s s es s i o nch ar ge a tth e r ev o ca t i o nh eari n g; Def endant a d m itted all other violations, except the evidenc e tamper ing c harg e. Af ter he aring testimony , the district court found D efe ndant guilty of the e vidence tamperingchar g e. 2 D ef en dant- Appe llant T im oth y W ay ne F er guso n a

ppe al s hi s 24 -m onth sentence for violation of his su pervised release. N o reversible er ror has been
s h o w n ; w e a f

f i rm. D ef en dant o ff

er s no c ha lle nge to the r ev oc at ionof his sup er vis ed r el ea se ; he adm itted to su pervised release violatio ns. A fter c onsid ering the section 355 3(a) 1 fa ct or s, 18 U
. S. C. § 35 53( a) , the dis tr ic t c ourt ha d th e dis cr et ionto te rm inate De fendant’ s supervised release, extend it, or re voke it and sen tence him to a term of prison. See 18 U. S. C. § 358 3(e). De fendant argues that the 24-m onth sentence im posed up on revocation is d ue to be reversed bec ause the district court
co nsi de re d im

pr ope rl y D ef en dant’ s ne ed

f or r eh ab ili ta tio n inim

posi ng a pr iso n te rm an d b ecau se th e se nt en ce i m po se d was un reas on ab le un de r se ct io n 3 55 3( a). W e re vie wase nte nc e im pose d up on r ev oc at ionof sup er vis ed r el ea se f or reasonableness. Se e U nited States v. S we eting, 437 F.3d 1105 , 1106-07 (11 Cir. th 2006 ). D ef

en dant c ite s 18 U
. S. C. § 35 82( a) in supp ort of his c ont en tio n th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt a

buse d it s di sc re tio n w he n it f ac tor ed r eh ab ili ta tio n in to i ts d ec isi onThe g overnme nt a rgues that plain err or revie w applies beca use this sente ncing challeng e was not 2 raised be low. Be cause we c onclude that no e rror -- plain or otherwise -- has been shown, we do not addre ss this contention. 3 to im pose im prisonm ent upon revocation of De fendant’ s supervised release. 2 Se ct ion358 2( a) state s inr el ev an t part that “ im pr iso nm en t i s no t an a

ppr opr ia te
m eans o f pr om oti ng c or

re ct ionand r eh ab ili ta tio n. ” A nd i n U nit ed S ta te s v. Brow n, 224 F.3d 1237, 1240 (11 Cir. 2000 ), we said “ a court cannot im pose an th ini tia l i nc ar ce rativ e se nte nc e fo r the pur pose of pr ovi din g ade fe ndant w ith rehabilitative treatm ent.” But Brown a lso drew a distin ction between an initial incarce rative sentence and a sentence im posed after re vocation o f supervised
re le as e: “ a co urt m ay

c onsi de r a de fe ndant’ s r eh ab ili ta tiv e ne ed s w he n im posi ng a spe ci fi c inc ar ce rativ e te rm f oll ow ing r ev oc at ionof

sup er vis ed r el ea se . ” I d. (f ootnot e om itt ed ). S ee a lso , U nit ed S tate s v. W igg ins , 220 F
. 3d 1 248 (n o a buse of dis cr et ionto co nsi de r dr ug tre atm en t ava ila

bil ity w he n im posi ng s en te nc e upon revocation of supervised release). Br own, after exam ining the interplay

betwee n section 358 3(e) - - w hich, unlike section 3 582, addresses revocation of supervised relea se specifically

-- and the section 35 53(a) fa ctors (w hich section 3 583(e) requires a c ourt to cons ider) identified a “ clear legislative m andate that a court
m ust c onsi de r a de fe ndant’ s ne ed f or c or re ct ion al tr eatm en t whe n de te rm ini ng whether to revoke supervisedrelea se and sentence a def endant to priso n.” Id. at4

1241
. T he dis tr ic t c ourt’ s c onsi de ratio n of D ef en dant’ s ne ed

f or r eh ab ili ta tiv e tr eatm en t c onst itu te d no abuse of dis cr et ion
. D ef en dant a lso c ont en ds tha t the 24- m onth w ith in- gui de lin es -r an ge sentence im

posed just wee ks before D efendant’ s term of supervised release w as due to en d w as unr ea sona ble
. T he de fe re nti al abuse -o f- dis cr et ionstandard of
re vie wappl ie s to a ll se nte nc es , “ w he the r ins ide , j ust out sid e, or

sig nif ic an tly outsi de the Guidelines range. ” G all v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 591 (200 7). A lth oughw e w oul d or din ar ily e xpe ct ase nte nc e w ith in the gui de lin e range to be reasonable, that expectation sti ll m ust be m easured against the recor d. United States v. Ta lley , 431 F. 3d 78 4, 788 (11 Cir. 2005 ). The section 355 3(a) f actors th
m ust be c onsi de re d inf

as hio nin g ar ea sona

ble se nte nc e upon

r ev oc at ionof supe rv ise d r el ea se , tog ethe r w iththe a dvi sor y pol ic y state m en ts i n C ha

pte r 7 of the S en te nc ing G uid el ine s. Ar ev ie wof

the r ec or d sh ow s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt c onsi de re d th e applicable guid eline range, De fendant’ s crim inal histo ry , the m any oppo rtunities he ha d be ena ff

or de d, his ne ed

f or r eh ab ili ta tio n and v oc at ion al tr ai nin g, and the
ne ed to pr ote ct

the c om m uni ty . A lso , the r ec or d de m onstrate s th at D ef en dant alrea dy had violated th e term s of his sup ervised relea se at least tw ice. T he rec ord offer s scant supp ort for D efendant’ s claim that the district court did n ot consid er5

p ro p er l y t h e s ec t i o n 3 5 5 3 (a ) f ac t o rs ; n o t h i n g i n th e r ec o rdu n d er m i n es th i s Co u rt ’s
or di na ry ex pe ct at io n o f rea so nabl en es s fo r a wit hi n- gu id el in e-ra ng e se nt en ce. T al le y , 431 F
. 3d at 78 8. AFFIR MED.