FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT MAY 15, 2007 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N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T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. 06- 1322 0 Non-Argum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Dock etNo. 9 4- 00 12 9- CR-J -2 5- TEM UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us JOHN MARK POLKE, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (M ay 1 5, 200 7) Be fo re A N D E RS O N , BA RKE T T and P RY O R, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

JohnMark

P olk e ap pe al s hi s 21 -m onth se nte nc e fo r vio latin g th e co ndi tio ns of his sup ervised relea se. See 18 U. S. C. § 358 3(g). Polke argues that his sentence i s p r o c e du r a l l y an ds ub s t an t i v e l y u n r e a s o n ab l e . We a f f i rm. I. BACKG ROUND A ft er se rv ing an 84 -m onth se nte nc e of im pr iso nm en t ba se d onac onvi ct ion fo r be ing af

el on i n po sse ssi on o f a fi re ar m , 18 U . S. C. § 92 2( g) , P olk e be gan a thr ee -y ear te rm

of sup er vis ed r el ea se on D ec em

be r 13, 200 0. A m ong the conditi ons of Polke’s supervised relea se we re that he not com m it a feder al, state, or loc al c ri m e or

il le ga lly pos se ss a c ontro lle d su

bst an ce , f ir earm , or de str uc tiv e de vic e. O n Augus t 29 , 200 3, the dis tr ic t c ourt r ev oke d P olk e’ s su pe rv ise d r el ea se and sentenced him

to one day

of im prisonm ent and 23 m onth s of supervised relea se subject to the sam e condition s as his previou s release . O n M ay 24, 200 5, P olk e w as arr es te d a ft er he f le d th e sc en e of

asta bbi ng, an d c ra ck c oc ai ne w as f

ound in the squ ad

c ar a ft er his arr es t. T he gov er

nm en t pe tit ion ed

to re voke P olk e’ s su

pe rv ise d r el ea se . A t the r ev oc at ionhe ar ing , the dis tr ic t c ourt f

ound that P olk e ha d vi olate d th e co ndi tio ns o f his sup er vis ed r el ea se by po ss es si ng co cai ne an d re si st in g a rres t wi th ou t v io le nc e, a Grad e B v io la ti on . Polke’ s crim inal histo ry

category wa s VI , and the advis ory Sentencing Guidelines ran ge forhi s s en te nc e o f im pr is on m en t was 21 to 27 m on th s. U.S.S.G. § 7 B1 .4(a ).3

T he dis tr ic t c ourt r ev oke d P olk e’ s su pe rv ise d r el ea se and i m

pose d ase nte nc e of 21 m onths. II. ST AN DA RD S OF RE VIEW W e re vie wde nov o th e int er pr et at ionof

se nte nc ing pr ovi sio ns g ove rn ing re voc at ionof

sup er vis ed r el ea se . S ee U nit ed

S tate s v. Q uin one s, 136 F . 3d 1 293, 1294 ( 11th C ir . 199 8) . W e re vie wf or pla in e rr or

ase nte nc ing arg um en t r ai se d f or the f ir st t im e on a

ppe al . Unit ed

S tate s v. A gui lla

rd , 217 F . 3d 1 319, 132 0 ( 11th Ci r. 200 0) . W e re vie wf

or r ea sona ble ne ss a se nte nc e im

pose d f or vio latin g a co ndi tio n of

sup er vis ed r el ea se . U nit ed

S tate s v. S w ee tin g, 437 F . 3d 1 105, 110 6- 07 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). III. D ISCU SSION Po lke arg ue s f

or the f ir st t im e on a

ppe al that hi s se nte nc e is p ro ce dur al ly unr ea sona

ble be ca use the dis tr ic t c ourt f

ai le d to c al cu late and d et er m ine the Guidelines range and consider the statutory sentencing factors, 18 U .S .C. § 35 53( a) . T his arg um en t f ai ls. B ec au se the dis tr ic t c ourt f ound that P olk e poss es se d ac ontro lle d su bst an ce , P olk e w as sub

j ec t t o m an dator

y r ev oc at ionand im pr iso nm en t. 18 U . S. C. § 35 83( g) (1 ). Whe n ac ourt de ci de s to r ev oke supe rv ise d r el ea se und er

18 U . S. C. § 35 83( e) , the c ourt m ust c onsi de r the se nte nc ing f

ac tor s un de r se ct ion355 3( a) , U nit ed S tate s v. Whit e, 416 F . 3d 1 313,4

1 3 1 8 ( 1 1 thC i r . 2 0 0 5 ) , b u t“ ‘w h e nr e v o c a t i o no f s up e rv i s e dr e l e a s e i s man d a t o ry, unde r 18 U . S. C. § 35 83( g) , the statut e doe s no t r equir e co nsi de ratio n of the § 35 53( a) f

ac tor s. ’ ” U nit ed

S tate s v. Br own, 224 F . 3d 1 237, 124 1 ( 11th C ir . 200 0) (quot ing U nit ed

S tate s v. G idd ing s, 37 F . 3d 1 091, 109 5 ( 5thCi r. 199 4) ). T he district court did n ot comm it plain error when it sentenced Polke. Po lke a lso arg ue s th at

his se nte nc e is s ubst an tiv el y unr ea sona

ble be ca use he wa s within two m onth s of com pleting his term

of supervised release, he had m aintained steady

em ploym ent and a steady

residential address, he had not tested p o s i t i v e f o r d ru g s , an dh e h adre ce n t l y b ec o m e afa th er . We d i s ag re e. Po l k e’s sentence at the low end of his proffered c alculation of the adviso ry Guidelines range takes into account these m itigatin g facts but refle cts that Polke had re pe at ed ly

vio late d th e te rm s of

his sup er vis ed r el ea se and h ad

an e xte nsi ve his tor y of r ec idi vis m . Unde r our

de fe re nti al r ev ie w , se e, e . g. , U nit ed S tate s v. T al le y , 431 F . 3d 7 84, 788 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) , w e cannot say that P olk e’ s se nte nc e is unreasonable. IV. C ONC LUS ION Po lke ’ s se nte nc e is AFFIRMED.