[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 21-10773

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

HOLLIS THOMPSON, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Alabama

D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cr-00119-TFM-1

____________________

USCA11 Case: 21-10773 Date Filed: 03/28/2022 Page: 1 of 6
2 Opinion of the Court 21-10773

Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Hollis Thompson appeals his 14-month sentence upon revocation of supervised release. He argues that his sentence was substantively unreasonable because the district court gave significant 

weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, failed to give consideration to factors that were due significant weight, and committed a 

clear error of judgment in weighing the proper factors. We disagree and affirm.

We generally review a sentence imposed upon revocation 

of supervised release for reasonableness. See United States v. Vandergrift, 754 F.3d 1303, 1307 (11th Cir. 2014). When reviewing for 

procedural reasonableness, we consider legal issues de novo and 

reviews factual findings for clear error. See United States v. 

Rothenberg, 610 F.3d 621, 624 (11th Cir. 2010). When reviewing 

for substantive reasonableness, we consider the totality of the circumstances under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. See 

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The party challenging 

the sentence bears the burden to show that the sentence is unreasonable considering the record and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. 

See United States v. Tome, 611 F.3d 1371, 1378 (11th Cir. 2010).

If an appellant did not object on the basis of procedural reasonableness before the district court, we review for plain error. 

Vandergrift, 754 F.3d at 1307. But a defendant’s argument for a 

specific sentence in the district court preserves for appeal a claim 

USCA11 Case: 21-10773 Date Filed: 03/28/2022 Page: 2 of 6
21-10773 Opinion of the Court 3

that a longer sentence was substantively unreasonable. See Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 762, 766–67 (2020). A

defendant is not required to raise a specific objection that the sentence is unreasonable, which is the standard of review for appeal, 

but need only bring to the district court’s attention his view that a 

longer sentence is greater than necessary. See id. 

In reviewing the reasonableness of a sentence, we first consider whether the district court committed a procedural error, such 

as failing to calculate or improperly calculating the guideline range. 

See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. We ensure that the district court treated 

the Guidelines as advisory, considered the § 3553(a) factors, did not 

select a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, and adequately 

explained the chosen sentence. See id. A district court’s acknowledgment that it has considered the § 3553(a) factors and the parties’ 

arguments is usually sufficient. See United States v. Sarras, 

575 F.3d 1191, 1219 (11th Cir. 2009). 

A court can abuse its discretion by imposing a substantively 

unreasonable sentence when it (1) fails to consider relevant factors 

that were due significant weight, (2) gives an improper or irrelevant factor significant weight, or (3) commits a clear error of judgment by balancing the proper factors unreasonably. See United 

States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1189 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc). Thus, 

a district court’s unjustified reliance on any one § 3553(a) factor 

may be indicative of an unreasonable sentence. See United States 

v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179, 1191 (11th Cir. 2008). Though the district 

court is required to evaluate all of the § 3553(a) factors, the weight 

USCA11 Case: 21-10773 Date Filed: 03/28/2022 Page: 3 of 6
4 Opinion of the Court 21-10773

accorded to each factor is within the sound discretion of the district 

court. See United States v. Ramirez-Gonzalez, 755 F.3d 1267, 

1272–73 (11th Cir. 2014). Under the abuse-of-discretion standard, 

we will affirm any sentence that falls within the range of reasonable 

sentences, even if we would have decided that a different sentence 

was more appropriate. See Irey, 612 F.3d at 1191. Although we do 

not automatically presume a sentence falling within the guideline 

range is reasonable, we ordinarily expect such a sentence to be reasonable. See United States v. Hunt, 526 F.3d 739, 746 (11th Cir. 

2008). A sentence imposed well below the statutory maximum 

penalty is another indicator of a reasonable sentence. See United 

States v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319, 1324 (11th Cir. 2008).

A district court may revoke supervised release after considering “the factors set forth in [§§] 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C), 

(a)(2)(D), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6), and (a)(7).” 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). The 

enumerated § 3553(a) factors include, in relevant part, (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct; (3) the need to protect the public from 

further crimes of the defendant; (4) the need to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, 

or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner; 

(5) the kinds of sentence and the sentencing range under the Guidelines; and (6) any pertinent policy statement issued by the Sentencing Commission. See § 3553(a). Absent from § 3583(e) is 

§ 3553(a)(2)(A), which provides that a district court consider “the 

USCA11 Case: 21-10773 Date Filed: 03/28/2022 Page: 4 of 6
21-10773 Opinion of the Court 5

need for the sentence imposed . . . to reflect the seriousness of the 

offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense.” § 3553(a)(2)(A). The introduction to Chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines explains that the Commission 

adopted the position that, in revoking supervised release, a district 

court should sanction primarily the defendant’s breach of trust, 

while taking into account, to a limited degree, the seriousness of 

the underlying violation and the criminal history of the violator. 

See U.S.S.G. Ch. 7, Pt. A, intro. comment.

In Vandergrift, we considered, under plain error review, 

whether a district court’s consideration of § 3553(a)(2)(A) in imposing a sentence upon revocation of supervised release was procedurally unreasonable. 754 F.3d at 1308–09. We recognized that neither we nor the Supreme Court had addressed whether it was an 

error to consider a factor listed in § 3553(a)(2)(A) when imposing a 

sentence after revoking supervised release and that those circuits 

that had published an opinion addressing the issue were split. See 

id. However, we held that, considering the lack of clear binding 

precedent and the circuit split, a district court’s consideration of 

§ 3553(a)(2)(A) in imposing a sentence upon revocation of supervised release was not plain error. See id.

Here, as an initial matter, the district court’s consideration 

of § 3553(a)(2)(A) in imposing a sentence upon revocation of supervised release, an issue which Mr. Thompson did not raise at sentencing and which we have considered to be a question of procedural reasonableness, was not plain error, as it was not contrary to 

USCA11 Case: 21-10773 Date Filed: 03/28/2022 Page: 5 of 6
6 Opinion of the Court 21-10773

binding precedent. Moreover, Mr. Thompson’s sentence was substantively reasonable because it was below the statutory maximum 

and within the guideline range and the district court considered 

and did not abuse its discretion in weighing the applicable § 3553(a) 

factors, including his background and characteristics, and the circumstances of his violation of the terms of his supervised release

(which involved use of a controlled substance, discharge from a 

residential re-entry center, and the improper use of a phone at the 

center).

AFFIRMED. 

USCA11 Case: 21-10773 Date Filed: 03/28/2022 Page: 6 of 6