FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T OCT 27, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

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

No. 0 7- 15 93 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- D.C. Dock etNo. 0 1- 06 06 7- CR-WJZ UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us LEON G. W OLF, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- - (Oc to ber 2 7, 2 00 8) Befo re EDMONDSON, Ch ie f Ju dg e, CARNES an d B ARKETT, Circu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Leo n G. Wolf

ap pe al s h is sen te nc e fo r vi ol at in g h is pro ba ti on , whi chhe
co nt en ds is un reas on ab le . Seei ng no rev ers ib le erro r, we affi rm hi s s en te nc e.I.

In20 03 , W ol f was sen te nc edto fiv e y ears ’ pr ob at io n a ndord eredto pa y
m or e th an$2 80 ,00 0 i n re st itut io n fo r ta x fr au d. Ov er the ne xty ear, Wol f
co m m it te d t hr ee s ep arat e p ro ba ti on vi ol at io ns an d, as a res ul t, a warran t was is su edforhi s arres t. Bec au se W ol f ha d a ll eg ed ly fledth e co un try, the warran t was
no t ex ecu te d u nt il lat e 2 00 7 h owe ve r. At h is rev oc at io n h eari ng , W ol f, who was t he n s ix ty-th ree years o ld , adm it te d t o e ach pro ba ti on vi ol at io n b utne ve rth el es s as ke d t he di st ric t co urt t o te rm in at e h is pro ba ti on onacco un t o f hi s o ldag e, de cl in in g h eal th , andde si re t o pr ov id e co nt in ue d a ss is ta nc e to law en fo rcem en t ag en ci es . The g ov ern m en t 1 op po se d Wol f’s reque stforlen ie nc y , di sp ut in g h is cla im of i ll he al th , no ti ng th at

2 he ha d d on e li tt le to sat is fy hi s re st itut io n o bl ig at io ns , andcla im in g t ha t h e h ad fle d t he co un try in 2 00 4 t o a vo idfurth er p ro se cu ti on . The g ov ern m en t as ke d fo r th e st atut ory

m ax im um : fi ve y ears inpri so n. The di stric t co urt ag reedth atW ol f vi ol at edhi s p ro ba ti on . After s ta ti ng th at th e co urt h adcare fu ll y

co ns id eredth e p art ie s’ arg um en ts , th e p ro ba ti on vi ol at io n

Wolf claimed that he made a living a s an informa nt. 1 Whil e in c ustody , Wolf re fused laboratory tests to confirm and medic ation to help his alleg ed 2 health issues. 2rep ort, an d t he ori gi na l p re-s en te nc e rep ort, the co urt re vo ke d Wol f’s pr ob at io n.

The co urt the n s en te nc edW ol f to twel ve m on th s’ im pr is on m en t, co nc lu di ng th at hi s m is co nduc t warran te d asen te nc e sl ig ht ly abo ve th e Fed eral Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s ra ng e o f th ree t o n in e m on th s’ im pr is on m en t “ to refl ectres pe ctforth e la w, to pro vi de jus t p un is hm en t, an d t o a ffo rdad equa te de te rren ts [si c] to fu tu re cri m in al co nduc t.” Wol f ap pe al s.
II.
W e rev ie w th e rea so nabl en es s o f a s en te nc e fo r anab us e o f di sc ret io n. 3 Gall v. Un it edSta te s, 1 28 S. Ct. 5 86 , 59 6- 97 (20 07 ). The p arty ch al le ng in g t he
se nt en ce m

us t s ho w th atitis un reas on ab le inth e li gh t o f th e rec or d a ndth e fac to rs in 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a). Uni te d S ta te s v . Tall ey , 43 1 F .3d78 4, 7 88 (11 thCir
. 20 05 ). Here, Wolf c la im s t ha t h is sen te nc e is pro cedur al ly unr eas on ab le be cau se th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ex pl ai n wh y itde vi at edfro m

th e Gui de li ne s ra ng e o r
co ns id er al l s ect io n 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s wh endo in g s o. Wolf als o b el ie ve s h is

Although the district court failed to elicit objections afte r imposing Wolf’s sentenc e as require d 3 by United States v. J ones, 899 F.2d 1097 (11th Cir. 1990), overr uled in part on other grounds, United States v. Morrill, 984 F.2d 1136 (11th Cir. 1993), rema nd is unnece ssary beca

use Wolf has not raised t h e i s s u e o n appeal and the rec ord allows for meaning ful revie w of his claims. United States v. Gates, 967 F .2d 497, 500 n.1 (11th Cir. 1992). 3se nt en ce i s s ub st an ti ve ly unr eas on ab le be cau se itis gre at er tha n n eces sa ry to serve it s p ur po se . Bot h a rg um en ts fai l. A di st ric t co urt errs pro cedur al ly if itdo es no t s uf fic ie nt ly exp la in th e ch os ensen te nc e o r co ns id er the fact or s i n s ect io n 3 55 3( a) wh ende te rm in in g t ha t
se nt en ce. Gal l, 1 28 S. Ct. at59 7. Th e co urt, h owe ve r, ne edno t o pe nl y st at e th atit ha s co ns id eredeach sec ti on 35 53 (a) fa ct oror e xp li ci tl y di sc us s t ho se fact or s. Uni te d S ta te s v . Sco tt , 42 6 F .3d13 24 , 13 29 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). Ins te ad , itne ed di sc lo se on ly “ en ou gh to sat is fy th e ap pe ll at e co urt tha t [i t] has co ns id eredth e pa rti es ’ arg um en ts an d h as a reas on edba si s fo r ex erci si ng [it s] ownleg al de ci si on m ak in g aut ho rit y .” Rit a v . Uni te d S ta te s, 1 27 S. Ct. 2 45 6, 2 46 8 (2 00 7)
. W ol f’s se nt en ce i s p ro cedur al ly sou nd . The rec or d s ho ws tha t the di st ric t
co urt en te rta in edth e arg um en ts of e ach pa rty, inc lu di ng W ol f’s supp os ed
m it ig at in g c irc um st an ces , andco nf irmed th e ap pl ic ab le Gui de li ne s ra ng e. The
co urt al so no te d t ha t i t h adrev ie wedth e p ro ba ti on vi ol at io n a ndpre -s en te nc e rep orts , th e la tt er o f whi chou tl in edth e m ax im um pe na lt y for W ol f’s un de rlyin g cri m e. Inad di ti on , th e co urt ex pl ic it ly reli edup oncert ai n s ect io n 3 55 3( a) fact or s—th e n eedto pro m ot e res pe ctforth e la w, to pro vi de jus t p un is hm en t, an d to de te r fu tu re cr im in al co nduc t— inco nc lu di ng th ata se nt en ce ab ov e th e

4Gui de li ne s ra ng e was warran te d. Becaus e we s ee n o p ro cedur al erro r, we wil l 4 affi rm W ol f’s se nt en ce u nl es s i t i s s ub st an ti ve ly unr eas on ab le
. Whe n re vi ewin g t he subs ta nt iv e rea so nabl en es s o f a s en te nc e ab ov e th e Gui de li ne s ra ng e, we affo rd“ du e d efer en ce t o the di st ric t co urt’s d eci si on th atth e § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s, o n awho le , just ify the ex te ntof t he va ria nc e.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Liv es ay , 52 5 F .3d10 81 , 10 91 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)
. W e wil l re ve rs e o nl y

“ if we are l eftwith t he de fin it e an d fi rm co nv ic ti on th atth e di st ric t co urt co m

mit te d acle ar erro r of

jud gm en t i n wei gh in g t he § 3 55 3( a) fact or s b y arri vi ng at asen te nc e th atli es ou ts id e th e ran ge of r eas on ab le sen te nc es di ct at edby the fact s o f th e cas e.” Uni te d S ta te s v . McBr id e, 51 1 F .3d12 93 , 12 97 -9 8 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 7) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)
. W ol f’s se nt en ce i s al so subs ta nt iv el y so un d. Wolf

adm it te dl y

vi ol at edth ree
se pa rat e co nd it io ns of h is pro ba ti on an d, af te r do in g s o, al le ge dl y

fle d t he co un try to av oi d p ro se cu ti on . Mor eo ve r, he m ad e li tt le effo rt t o fu lfi ll hi s re st itut io n ob li ga ti on s, wh ic h t ot al edov er $ 28 0,0 00 . Bas edonth es e fac ts alo ne , W ol f’s

Wolf claims that the district court violated section 3553(c) (2) by not sufficie ntly disclosing the 4 rea sons for his above- Guidelines sentence in its written order. But even i f W olf is co rrect, we do not believe this mistake, standing alone, mandates the reve rsal of an otherwise rea sonable sentenc e. See United States v. Jones, 509 F.3d 911, 916 (8th Cir. 2007). 5se nt en ce, wh ic h o nl y sl ig ht ly excee ds th e Gui de li ne s ra ng e an d wh ic h i s wel l be lo w th e st atut ory

m ax im um , is no t s ub st an ti ve ly unr eas on ab le
.

III.
W ol f’s se nt en ce i s AFF IRM ED.

6