# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 6- 14 95

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Galv in Hend ers on , als o k no wn as Ch ees eb ur ge r, al so kn own as C he es e

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - Li tt le Ro ck

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 19 , 20 16 Fil ed : Oct ob er 2 5, 2 01 6 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re WOL LMAN, ARNOLD, and KELLY , Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

Galv in Hen de rs on ap pe al s fro m th e se nt en ce of twel ve m on th s' im pr is on m en tth at th e di st ric t co ur t im po se d aft er fin di ng hi m gu il ty of nu m ero us vi ol at io ns of hi s 1

su pe rv is ed rel eas e co nd it io ns

. Hen de rs on m ai nt ai ns th at th e d is tri ct co ur t ga ve in ad eq ua te c o n s i d e r a ti on to th e fact or s se t ou t in 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a) an d th at it ab us ed it s d is cret io n i n a rri vi ng at t he ul ti m at e se nt en ce.

Bec au se Hen de rs on di d no t ob ject at h i s rev oc at io n he ari ng th at th e di st ric t

co ur t ha d pa id in su ffi ci en t at te nt io n to 28 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a) in se nt en ci ng hi m , we

rev ie w h is fir st co nt en ti on fo r pl ai n erro r

. U n i t e d St at es v. Perk in s , 5 26 F.3 d 11 07
, 11 11 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ). In fix in g i ts sen te nc e, th e d is tri ct co ur t s pe ci fic al ly not ed th at it ha d co ns id ered "t he fact o r s l is te d in 18 U.S.C. 35 53 (a)" as th e la w req ui res

. W e ha ve ob se rv ed in th es e ki nd s of case s th at we pr es um e th at di st ric t j ud ge s kn ow th e la w an d un de rs ta nd th ei r du ty to co ns id er all of th e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s, Uni te d St at es

v. Bat ti es t , 55 3 F.3 d 11 32
, 11 36 (8 th Ci r

. 2 0 0 9 )
, an d he re we do no t ev en ha ve to

res or t to th e pr es um

pt io n be cau se th e di st ric t co ur t sa id di rect ly th at it ha d co m pl ie d wit h it s le ga l ob li ga ti on s. The se nt en ce, m or eo ve r, was wit hi n th e ap pl ic ab le

gu id el in es ran ge of se ve n to th irt een m on t h s' im pr is on m en t, an d in su ch ci rcu m st an ces l i t tl e ex pl an at io n of th e reas on s fo r th e se nt en ce is req ui red be cau se it is li ke ly tha t t he di st ric t cou rt res te d it s dec is io n on th e Sen te nc in g Com m is si on 's

own reas on in g t h a t th e gu id el in es se nt en ce was pr op er. Rit a v. Uni te d St at es , 55 1 U.S. 33 8, 3 56 –5 7 (2 00 7) . There is no erro r he re, m uc h l es s p la in erro r.

Hen de rs on ' s a s s e rti on th at th e di st ric t co ur t's se nt en ce was un reas on ab le be cau se it ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in fix in g it is eq ua ll y un av ai li ng

. It is tru e th at th e di st ric t co ur t reco m

m en de d th at Hen de rs on pa rti ci pa te in no n r e si de nt ia l su bs ta nc e ab us e an d m en ta l he al th tre at m en t du rin g hi s in carc erat io n, an d, as Hen de rs on no te s, th e Su pr em e Co ur t ha s he ld th at a se nt en ci ng co ur t m ay n o t im po se or le ng th en a

se nt en ce to pr omo t e a de fen da nt 's reh ab il it at io n. Ta pi a v. Uni te d St at es , 56 4 U.S.

The Hon or ab le Ja m es M. Mo od y Jr
., Uni te d S t a te s Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1 East ern Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.

-2-31 9, 32 1 (2 01 1)

. Bu t no th in g in th e pr es en t reco rd su pp or t s an in fere nc e th at th e

di st ric t co ur t di d th at he re: It s im pl y reco m m en de d t reat m en t wh il e Hen de rs on was

se rv in g th e te rm of im

pr is on m en t it im

po se d. The Ta

pi a co ur t ex pl ic it ly pe rm it te d a

se nt en ci ng co ur t to "u rg e th e BOP to p la ce an of fen de r in a pr is on tre at m en t
pr og ram ," whi ch is al l th at ha pp en ed in th e pr es en t cas e. Th e r e w a s no ab us e of di sc ret io n.

Affi rm ed

.

KELLY, Cir cu it Ju dg e, co nc ur rin g.

“ A di st ric t co ur t ne ed no t m ech an ic al ly li st ev ery § 35 53 (a) co ns id erat ion w hen

se nt en ci ng a de fen da nt up on rev oc at io n of su p e r v i s e d rel eas e.” Uni te d St at es v. W hi te Face
, 38 3 F.3 d 73 3, 74 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. Bu t, “ ev id en ce th at th e co ur t ha s co ns id ered th e rel ev an t m at te rs an d th at s o me r e a s on be st at ed fo r it s de ci si on ” is req ui red

. Id .; se e al so Gall v. Uni te d St a t e s , 5 5 2 U

. S. 38
, 51 (2 00 7) (p ro ced ur al erro r in cl ud es “ fai li ng to co ns id er th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s” an d “ fai li ng to ad eq ua te ly ex pl ai n th e ch os en se nt en ce”)

. In th is cas e, th e di st ric t co ur t pr ov id ed th e fo ll owi ng ex pl an at io n fo r it s se nt en ci ng de ci si on : “ Afte r co ns id erat io n of th e fact or s li st ed in 18 U.S.C. 35 53 (a), it ’s th e or de r of th e Co ur t th at Mr. Hen de rs on sh al l be

co m m it te d to th e cu st od y of th e Bu reau of Pri so ns fo r 12 m on th s wit h no su pe rv is ed rel eas e to fo ll ow.” Of co ur se , “ [t]he ap pr op ria te ne ss of br ev it y or le ng th
, co nc is en es s

or de ta il , wh en to writ e, wha t to sa y , d ep en ds up on ci rcu m st an ces .” Ri ta v. Uni te d
St at es , 55 1 U.S. 33 8, 35 6 (20 07 ). Here, Hen de rs on ad m it te d th e vi ol at io ns , ne it he r
pa rty pr es en te d ev id en ce, an d t h e h eari ng la st ed ap pr ox im at el y te n m in ut es

. Yet, whi le th e pa rti es ag reed on th e ap pl ic ab le ad vi so ry se nt en ci ng gu id el in e ran ge , th ey
req ue st ed di ffer en t ou tc om es : H e n d e r s o n as ke d fo r a m od ifi cat io n of hi s te rm of

su pe rv is ed rel eas e to in cl ud e a st ay at a ha lfwa y ho us e, an d th e go ve rn m en t as ke d fo r a wit hi n- gu id el in e-ra ng e se nt en ce wi th no su pe rv is io n t o fo ll ow.

-3-“ W e pr es um e th at ‘dis tri ct jud ge s kn ow th e la w an d un de rs ta nd th ei r ob li ga ti on

t o co ns id er al l of th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s,’” Uni te d St at es v. Bat ti es t, 55 3 F.3 d 11 3 2
, 11 36 (8 th Ci r. 2 0 0 9 ) ( q u ot in g Uni te d St at es v. Gray
, 53 3 F.3 d 94 2, 94 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 )), an d we do so wit h go od reas on

. Howev er, th ere m us t be su ffi ci en t ev id en ce of th at co ns id erat io n o n t he reco rd fo r ap pe ll at e rev ie w. See, e.g., Ri ta , 55 1 U.S. at
34 4– 46 (co ur t act iv el y qu es ti on ed de fen da nt ab ou t th e reas on s fo r hi s req ue st fo r do wnwar d de pa rtu re be fo re im po si ng se nt en ce); Uni te d St at es v. Jo hn so n, 82 7 F.3 d
74 0, 74 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (co ur t rev ie wed pa st se nt e n c e s an d co m m en te d on th ei r effe ct iv en es s pr io r to se nt en ci ng ); Uni te d St at es v. Thu nd er, 55 3 F.3 d 60 5, 60 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (s uf

fic ie nt di sc us si on whe n co ur t m en tio ne d ge ne ra l § 3553 (a ) req ui rem en t

an d reci te d so m e of de fen da nt ’s hi st or y an d ci rcu m st an ces of hi s o f f e n s e ) ; Uni te d
St at es v. Perk in s, 52 6 F.3 d 11 07
, 11 10 –1 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (ex pl an at io n th at “ reco rd

sp eak s fo r it se lf” su ffi ci en t whe n di st ric t co ur t im po se d bo th de fen da nt ’s or ig in al

se nt en ce an d hi s rev oc at io n se nt en ce). Bec au se I b e l i ev e th e ex pl an at io n pr ov id ed in th is cas e w as in su ffi ci en t, I wou ld fin d th at th e di st ric t co ur t m ad e a pr oc ed ur al

erro r in im

po si ng Hend ers on ’s sen te nc e.

N e i t h er pa rty as ke d th e di st ric t co ur t fo r a m or e de ta il ed as se ss m en t of th e
st at ut or y fact or s or a m or e th o r o u g h ex pl an at io n fo r th e se nt en ce im po se d, so we

rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s se nt en ce fo r pl ai n erro r. App lying pl ai n erro r rev ie w, Hen de rs on ha s fai le d to de m on st rat e th at th is erro r affe ct ed hi s su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s. See Uni te d St at es v. Fran kl in
, 39 7 F.3 d 60 4, 60 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ). Bec au se Hen de rs on ha s

m ad e n o s uc h s ho win g, I c on cu r in th e co ur t’s jud gm en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-4-