### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T N ove m be r 17, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ 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. 05- 11430 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 98 -000 83 -C R -O D E -1 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 G R E G O R Y A L P H O N S O F I N N E Y , 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 N o r th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( N ove m b e r 17, 2005) B efo re A N D E R S O N , D U B IN A an d B L A C K , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A pp el l antG re go ry A l ph on so F i nn ey appeal s the se nt ence i m po se d2

f o llo w in g th e r e v o c a tio n o f h is s u p e r v is e d r e le a s e , p u r s u a n t to 1 8 U .S .C . § 35 83 (g). O n app ea l , F i nn ey ar gu es that18 U . S . C . § 3 58 3 requi re s thatdi stri ct c our t s c ons i de rthe f

a c t or s s e tf

or th i n 18 U . S . C . § 3553 be f or e i m pos i ng a se nt ence for adefe nd ant ’ s vi ol at i on of hi s s up ervi se d rel ea se . W hi l e F i nn ey a c know l e dge s ourhol di ng i n U n i t e d S ta t e s v . Br o wn , 22 4 F . 3d 12 37 (11t h C i r. 20 00 ), thatm andat ory r evocat i on of supervi se d rel ea se , un der 18 U . S . C . § 3 58 3(g), do es no tre qu i re a di stri ctcourtt o con si der the § 3 55 3 fac t ors, F i nn ey cont ends that g e n e r a l p r in c ip le s o f

s ta tu to ry c o n s tru c tio n s u g g e s t th a t § 3 5 5 3 s h o u ld g e n e r a lly appl y t o al l re vo ca t i on s of s up ervi se d rel ea se . F i nn ey further a rgues thatthe § 35 53 fa ct ors a re general l y app l i cabl e t o feder al se nt enci ng s und er U ni t ed Stat es v. B oo ke r , 5 4 3 U . S . ___ , 1 2 5 S . C t . 7 3 8 , 1 6 0 L . E d . 2 d 6 2 1 (2 0 0 5 ). F i n n ey al so m a i nt a i ns tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tdi d notc ons i de rorr e f e rt o a ny of

the § 3553 f a c to r s d u r in g th e s e n te n c in g h e a r in g o rin th e c o u r t’s w r itte n o r d e r . In i nst ance s w here the di stri ctcourti m po se s ase nt ence beyond the chapt er s e v e n g u id e lin e r a n g e , w e r e v ie w f o ra n a b u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . U

ni t ed Stat es v. A g u i l la rd , 2 1 7 F .3 d 1 3 1 9 , 1 3 2 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . F in n e y d id n o t r a is e h is a r gum e nt s r e ga r di ng the appl i c a t i on of the § 3553 f

a c t or s , pur s ua ntt o pr i nc i pl e s of st atut ory c on struct i on or B oo ke r , i n th e d i stri ctco u rt , an d , th u s, h e rai ses th o se a r g u m e n ts f

o rth e f ir s t tim e in h is ap p e lla te b r ie f . W e r e v ie w s e n te n c in g a r g u m e n ts3

th a t a r e r a is e d f

o rth e f ir s t tim e o n ap p e a l f

o rp la in e rr o r . A g u i l la rd , 21 7 F . 3d at 1320. U nde rpl a i n e rr orr e vi e w , the r e m us tbe ( 1) a n e rr or , ( 2) tha ti s pl a i n, a nd ( 3 ) a f f e c ts s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts . I d. W hen t hese three fa ct ors a re m et , w e m ay then ex erci se o u r d i scret i o n an d co rrectth e erro r i f i tseri o u sl y affects th e fai rn ess, in te g r ity , o rp u b lic r e p u ta tio n o f th e ju d ic ia l p r o c e e d in g s . U ni t e d Stat e s v . O lano , 50 7 U . S . 72 5, 73 2, 11 3 S . C t . 17 70 , 17 76 , 12 3 L . E d. 2d 50 8 (19 93 ). S ect i o n 7 B 1 . 4 o f th e ch ap t er sev en p o l i cy st at em en t s o f th e G u i d el i n es, pr ovi de s the r a nge of

i m pr i s onm e ntappl i c a bl e upon r e voc a t i on of pr oba t i on or supervi se d rel ea se . U . S . S . G . § 7 B 1. 4(a) . T he appl i cabl e r ange i n F i nn ey ’ s c as e, w here he com m i tt ed a grade C v i ol at i on of hi s s up ervi se d rel ea se and h ad an o r ig in a l c r im in a l h is to ry c a te g o ry o f I V , w a s 6 to 1 2 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. U .S .S .G . § § 7 B 1 .1 ( a ) ( 3 ) ( B ) , 7 B 1 .4 ( a ) . T h e c h ap te rs e v e n g u id e lin e s a r e m e r e ly advi sory and i ti s s uffi ci entthatthere be “ som e i nd i ca t i on thatthe di stri ctcourt w as aw ar e of a nd consi dere d them . ” A g u i l la rd , 2 1 7 F .3 d a t 1 3 2 0 . W h e r e , a s h e r e , a d e f

e n d a n t r e f

u s e s to c o m p ly w ith d ru g s c r e e n in g th a t is i m po se d as acond i t i on of supervi se d rel ea se , the defendanti s s ubj ec tt o m andat ory r e voc a t i on of

hi s s upe r vi s e d r e l e a s e a nd i m pos i t i on of a t e r m of

i m pr i s onm e ntnot t o e x c e e d a s p e c i f

i c ma x i mu m. 1 8 U . S. C. § 3 5 8 3 ( g ) . Pu r s u a n tt o 1 8 U . S. C. § 3 58 3(e) (3), “ the courtm ay , af t erconsi deri ng the fa ct ors s etforth i n” § 3 55 3(a) ,Under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), the max imum term of imprisonment for bank robbery, the 1 of fens efo r which F inn e y

wa s o ri g inally

c onvic te d, is 2 0 ye ars . Thismaximumterm re sults in bank robbery

ear ning theclass C felony

classification, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a)(3) . Under U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1(a)(3) (B ), F inney ’s supervise d rele ase violation constituted a 2 Grade C violation. As such, 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)( 3) provided f or a max imum term of imprisonment of 2 year s upon revoc ation of super vised rele ase. The2-year statutory maxi mum wa s re du c e d b y

6 mo nth s in

F inn e y ’sc a sebe c a

us ehehad p revious ly

serv e d 6 months ’ imprisonment for his first revoc ation of super vised rele ase. Thus, thestatutory maxi mum term of imprisonment that Finney could servefor his sec ond supervised relea se violation is 18 months. See United States v. W illiams , No. 04-15732, ___ F .3d ___ (11th Cir. Sept. 19, 2005) (holdingthat § 3583(e) (3)’ s statutory maxi mums apply

in the ag greg ate, a

nd that, where a defendant had previously been sentence d to one-year and one da

y imprisonment upon revocation of hissu perv ise d re le a seand

§ 3 58 3( e )( 3) ’sstatutor

y maximumwa s tw o ye ars ’ impriso nment, the district court c ould only sentenc e the de fenda

nt to 364 days’ imprisonment upon “re revoc ation” of his super

vised rele ase) . 4 r e voke a t e r m of

s upe r vi s e d r e l e a s e a nd, w he r e the of f e ns e tha tr e s ul t e d i n the s u p e r v is e d r e le a s e is a c la s s C f e lo n y , im p o s e a te r m o f im p r is o n m e n t n o t to 1 exce ed tw o yea rs . H ow ever , w e have previ ou sl y det erm i ned t hat , “ w hen 2 r e voc a t i on of

s upe r vi s e d r e l e a s e i s m a nda t ory unde r18 U . S . C . § 3583( g) , the s ta tu te d o e s n o t req u i re consi dera t i on of the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors. ” Br o wn , 224 F . 3d at12 41 (quo t at i on om i tt ed) ( em ph as i s i n o ri gi nal ). Up o n r e v i e w o f

th e r e c o r d a n d c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f th e p a r t i e s ’ b r i e f

s , we di sc ern n o revers i bl e e rr or. F in n e y is u n a b le to s h o w th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o m m itte d p la in e rr o rin s e nt e nc i ng hi m be y ond the c hapt e rs e ve n gui de l i ne r a nge w i thoutc ons i de r i ng the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors. F i rs t , the G ui del i nes r anges provi ded i n U . S . S . G . § 7 B 1. 4(a) ar e a d v is o ry , a n d , a s s u c h , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t is n o t r e q u ir e d to im p o s e a s e n te n c e w ith in5

th e r e c o m m e n d e d r a n g e . See A g u i l la rd , 2 1 7 F .3 d at 1 3 2 0 . H er e, th e c o u rt’s s t a t e m e nttha ti tf

ound tha t“ the gui de l i ne r a nge of s i x t o tw e l ve m onths i s not adequat e und erthe fa ct s of M r. F i nn ey ’ s c as e, ” w as suff i ci entt o d em on stra t e that th e c o u r t c o n s id e r e d th e G u id e lin e s r a n g e . See i d. (hol di ng that“ i ti s e no ug h that there i s s om e i nd i ca t i on thatthe courtw as aw ar e of a nd consi dere d” the G ui del i nes r a nge ) . A ddi t i ona l l y , de s pi t e F i nne y ’ s a r gum e ntt o the c ontr a ry , ourpr e c e de nt c l e a r l y e s t a bl i s he s tha t , w he r e a de f e nda nti s s ubj e c tt o m a nda t or y r e voc a t i on of s u p e r v 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 ) , th e c o u r t is n o t r e q u ir e d to c ons i de rthe § 3553( a ) f a c t or s . F i nne y w a s s ubj e c tt o m a nda t ory r e voc a t i on b e c a u s e h e r e f

u s e d to c o m p ly w ith d ru g s c r e e n in g . See 1 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 c o u r t 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 se nt enci ng F i nn ey , i tdi d n otcom m i tan error. M o r e o v e r , F in n e y ’s a r g u m e n t th a t B oo ke rm ade the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors ge ne r a l l y appl i c a bl e t o f e de r a l s e nt e nc i ngs i s s i m i l a r l y w i thoutm e r i t . W e ha ve re ce nt l y hel d thatnei ther w e nor the S up re m e C ou rthas det erm i ned w hether B oo ke rap p lie s to s e n te n c e s im p o s e d f o llo w in g ar e v o c a tio n o f s u p e r v is e d r e le a s e . U n ite d S ta te s v . W

h ite , 41 6 F . 3d 13 13 , 13 18 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ). T here fore , even as sum i ng the courtcom m i tt ed a B oo ke rerro r, th aterro r can n o tb e “ p l ai n ” b ecau se it is n o t c le a r ly e s tab lis h e d th a t B oo ke rappl i e s t o s e nt e nc e s i m pos e d a f t e rthe6

r e v o c a tio n o f

s u p e r v is e d r e le a s e . See i d. a t1319 ( hol di ng tha tthe r e c a n be no pl ai n err or w i th regard t o an i ss ue thatnei ther the S up re m e C ou rtno r thi s C ou rt has e ver r es ol ved). L a s tly , w e h a v e d e te r m in e d th a t B oo ke rdi d nota l t e rours t a nda r ds f or re vi ew i ng the appl i ca t i on of the G ui del i nes thatw er e use d p re - B oo ke r . U ni t ed S ta t es v. C ra w

f o rd , 40 7 F . 3d 11 74 , 11 78 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ). O nce the courthas ca l cul at ed the G ui del i nes r ange i n the sa m e m anner as i tdi d p re - B oo ke r , the court m a y th e n “im p o s e a m o r e s e v e r e o rm o r e le n ie n t s e n te n c e a s lo n g a s th e s e n te n c e is re as on abl e. ” I

d. at11 78 -79. A s det erm i ned abo ve, the di stri ctcourt , pre- B oo ke r and i n the i nst antca se , consi dere d the chapt erse ven g ui del i ne ra ng es as advi sory and w as no tre qu i re d t o con si der the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors i n i m po si ng a m andat ory r e v o c a t i o n o f

s u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e a n d t e r m o f i mp r i s o n me n tu n d e r1 8 U . S. C. § 3 5 8 3 ( g ) . See A g u i l la rd , 2 1 7 F .3 d a t 1 3 2 0 ; Br o wn , 2 2 4 F .3 d a t 1 2 4 1 . C ons i de r i ng F i nne y ’ s f

a i l ur e t o s e e k a de qua t e tr e a tm e ntf orhi s drug pr obl e m a nd hi s r epea t ed supervi se d rel ea se vi ol at i on s, the courtdi d n oterr i n i m po si ng a m ore sev ere sen t en ce th an th atw h i ch th e G u i d el i n es reco m m en d ed . A cco rd i n g l y, F i nn ey ca nn otdem on stra t e thatthe courtpl ai nl y e rr ed i n i m po si ng hi s s ent ence , a n d , th u s , w e a f

f i r m. AF F I RME D.