[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 13-15365

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 6:10-cr-00005-BAE-GRS-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUSTIN MOSELY, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Georgia

________________________

(July 7, 2014)

Before WILSON, MARTIN, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Justin Mosely appeals the 14-month sentence imposed by the district court

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) following the second revocation of his 

Case: 13-15365 Date Filed: 07/07/2014 Page: 1 of 6 
2

supervised release. Mosely argues that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable 

because the district court failed to consider the advisory guideline range and other 

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors before imposing sentence. After careful review of the 

record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm.

In August 2010, Mosely pleaded guilty to theft from a federal firearm 

licensee and was sentenced to 24-months imprisonment to be followed by three 

years of supervised release. After his release from prison, the district court 

revoked Mosely’s supervised release in October 2012 because he admitted using a 

controlled substance and associating with a person engaged in criminal activity. 

The district court sentenced him to six-months imprisonment to be followed by 

two years of supervised release. Shortly after he was released from that term in 

prison, on August 16, 2013 Mosely’s probation officer petitioned to revoke his 

supervised release again, stating that Mosely possessed a controlled substance, 

associated with people engaged in criminal activity, and associated with a 

convicted felon without permission.

At his revocation hearing Mosely admitted the violations in the petition. 

The district court noted that this was the second time in 12 months that Mosely had 

been in court for using illegal drugs. After hearing from Mosely, the district court

told him that he sounded sincere, but found that his actions spoke “even louder.” 

The district court sentenced Mosely to 14-months imprisonment to be followed by 

Case: 13-15365 Date Filed: 07/07/2014 Page: 2 of 6 
3

16 months of supervised release. After imposing the sentence, the district court 

stated: “The Court, of course, prior to entering the sentence, has considered the 

Sentencing Commission Chapter 7 policy statements.” Neither party objected to 

the district court’s findings of fact or conclusions of law.

Mosely’s written judgment stated that the sentence was “imposed pursuant 

to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984,” and described Mosely’s underlying plea 

and sentence, his first release revocation and sentence, and the facts underlying the 

revocation at issue here. The district court also stated Mosley was “forthright [in]

accepting responsibility for his criminal associations and possession of marihuana. 

The Court notes that the defendant’s admission and apology seem sincere; 

however, the defendant’s conduct under supervision is what the Court must 

consider.” The judgment stated that the court had imposed sentence “after 

considering the Chapter Seven Policy Statements.”

Because Mosely did not object to any procedural deficiencies before the 

district court, our review is for plain error. See United States v. Rodriguez, 627 

F.3d 1372, 1380 (11th Cir. 2010). Establishing plain error requires a 

demonstration of error that is plain that affected both substantial rights and the 

fairness of the judicial proceedings. Id. The defendant bears the burden of 

showing prejudice. United States v. Rodriguez, 398 F.3d 1291, 1299–300 (11th 

Cir. 2005).

Case: 13-15365 Date Filed: 07/07/2014 Page: 3 of 6 
4

In reviewing the procedural reasonableness of a sentence, we examine 

whether the district court considered the § 3553(a) factors and adequately 

explained the chosen sentence. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S. Ct. 

586, 597 (2007). A district court is not required to discuss on the record each of 

the § 3553(a) factors. United States v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319, 1324 (11th Cir. 

2008) (per curiam). An acknowledgment that it has considered the factors together 

with the parties’ arguments is sufficient. Id.

Upon determining that a defendant violated a condition of supervised 

release, the district court may revoke the term of supervision and impose a term of 

imprisonment after considering: (1) the applicable guideline range; (2) the nature 

and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the 

defendant; (3) the need for the sentence imposed to afford adequate deterrence, 

protect the public, and effectively provide the defendant with needed training, 

medical care, or other correctional treatment; (4) the applicable Sentencing 

Commission policy statements; (5) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence 

disparities; and (6) the need to provide restitution. 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(e); 

see also United States v. Campbell, 473 F.3d 1345, 1348 (11th Cir. 2007) (per 

curiam).

Mosely has not shown that the district court committed an error that was 

plain during his sentencing. The district court explicitly discussed Mosely’s 

Case: 13-15365 Date Filed: 07/07/2014 Page: 4 of 6 
5

history, the circumstances of his violation, and the arguments of the parties. It also 

stated that it had considered the “Chapter 7 policy statements,” which include the 

§ 3553(a) factors and the advisory guideline range. Given this record and our 

precedent, the district court sufficiently explained its sentence. See Gonzalez, 550

F.3d at 1324. Further, Mosely has cited no authority for his argument that district 

courts must acknowledge the Chapter 7 policy statements before handing down a 

sentence, and we have found none.

In any event, Mosely has not established that, but for the district court’s 

failures to state his guideline range and provide more references to the sentencing 

factors, there is a reasonable probability he would have received a lower sentence. 

See United States v. Cartwright, 413 F.3d 1295, 1300–01 (11th Cir. 2005) (per 

curiam); Rodriguez, 398 F.3d at 1299–300. Mosely’s prison sentence was 

statutorily valid, as he was eligible for a release-revocation sentence of up to twoyears imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(i)(1), 3559(a)(3), 3583(e)(3). His 14-

month sentence was a 5-month upward variance from the top of his guideline 

range. See USSG §§ 7B1.1(a)(3), 7B1.4(a). Because the effect of any alleged 

procedural deficiencies during Mosely’s sentencing is at best uncertain, he has not 

met his burden of establishing prejudice under plain error review. See Cartwright, 

413 F.3d at 1300–01; Rodriguez, 398 F.3d at 1299–300. Therefore, we affirm 

Mosely’s sentence.

Case: 13-15365 Date Filed: 07/07/2014 Page: 5 of 6 
6

AFFIRMED.

Case: 13-15365 Date Filed: 07/07/2014 Page: 6 of 6