### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Ma y 1 0, 2005 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1432 7 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 03-00181 -CR- CG UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us LESLIE RICHARDSON, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt f or the S o u t h e rn D i s t r i c to f

A l ab a ma

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (M ay 1 0, 200 5) Be fo re BI RC H , D U BIN Aand B A RKE T T , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Appe llant L es lie Ri ch ar dsonappe al s hi s 24 -m onth se nte nc e im pose d f or vio la tin g th e te rm s of

his sup er vis ed r el ea se , 18 U . S. C. § 35 83( e) . A ft er f ind ing2

that R ic hard son (1 ) le ft

the dis tr ic t w ith out

pe rm iss ionto gam

ble ; ( 2) use d dr

ugs; (3 ) as sault ed

his e x- gir lf

ri en d; and ( 4) f

ai le d to pay

his m onthly

f ine paym en t, the dis tr ic t c ourt c onsi de re d th e Ch ap te r 7 a dvi sor y gui de lin es r an ge of

5 t o 11 m onths im pr iso nm en t, but

de ci de d to se nte nc e Ri ch ar dsonto the statut or y m ax im um of 24- m onths i m

pr iso nm en t ba se d onhis c ri m ina l hi sto ry and the te sti m ony

that he w as adange r to o the rs w hil e on c ontro lle d su bst an ce s. R ic hard son ar gue s th at the fo llo w ing m iti ga tin g f

ac tor s, ( 1) the que sti ona

ble c re dib ili ty

of his e x- gir lf

ri en d; (2 ) the na tur e of

his of fe nse s; and ( 3) the f

ac t tha t he a dm itt ed

to dr ug and gam bli ng a ddi ct ion s and a gr ee d to c ouns el ing , sup port the c onc lus ionthat the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s im

posi tio n of

a24- m onth se nte nc e (the statut or y m ax im um ) is plainlyunreasonable. W e re vie wf

or abuse of dis cr et ionadis tr ic t c ourt’ s de ci sio n to e xc ee d th e recom m ended sentencing range upon revocation of sup ervised relea se under Ch ap te r 7 o f th e Uni te d S ta te s Se nt en ci ng Co m m is si on Gui de li ne s M an ua l. See United States v. B rown , 224 F . 3d 1 237, 123 9 ( 11th C ir . 200 0) . C ha pte r 7 pe rt ai ns to vi ol at io ns of p ro ba ti on an d s up erv is edrel eas e. See U . S. S. G . § 7B 1. T he gui de lin e pr es en ts a

ta ble of r ec om m en de d im

pr iso nm en t r an ge s f

or vio la tio ns o f ce rt ai n gr ad es a t sp ec if

ic c ri m ina l hi sto ry

c at eg or ie s. U . S. S. G . § 7B 1. 4( a) . I t i s undi sputed th at Richardson’ s violatio ns of supervis ed relea se are classified as3

Gr ade C violations andthat his origi nal sentence car ried a C rim inal History Category of II I. Adefendant with that profile w ouldrec eive a r ecom m ended se nt en ce o f 5 t o 1 1 m on th s. See U . S. S. G . § 7B 1. 4 ( a) . T he dis tr ic t c ourt, however, also had available statutory m axim um s as a sentence. T he statutory m axim um for a revoked term

of supervised release is tw o y ears in prison for a class C fe lony . 18 U. S. C. § 358 3(e)( 3).

“ W e have he ld tha t the c ha pte r se ve n gu ide lin es are m er el y a dvi sor y , and i t is e noug h th at

the re is som e ind ic at ionthe dis tr ic t c ourt w as aw ar e of and considered them .” U

nit ed Sta tes v . A gui lla rd , 217 F. 3d 13 19, 1320 (11t h Cir. 2000 ) (c itatio n om itt ed ). T he dis tr ic t c ourt m ay im pose any se nte nc e w ith in the statut or y m ax im um and a se nte nc e in e xc es s of

the Ch ap te r 7 r an ge is pe rm itt ed so lo ng as i t i s wi th in th e ran ge im po se d b y Co ng res s. United States v. H ofierka , 83 F. 3d 3 57, 362 -6 3 ( 11th C ir . 199 6) . Mo re ove r, adis tr ic t c ourt m ay c onsi de r the rehabilitative needs of a defendant w hen im posin g a sentence exce eding th at reco m m en de d b y

Ch ap te r 7. Brown , 224 F. 3d at 124 3. W e also give great de fe re nc e to the dis tr ic t c ourt i n m ak ing c re dib ili ty de te rm inatio ns w ithr eg ar d to wit ne ss es . United States v. M cPhee , 336 F . 3d 1 269, 127 5 ( 11th C ir . 200 3) (ci ta ti on s o m it te d) .Consolidated with United States v. Fanfan . 1 4 A ft er r ev ie w ing the r ec or d, w e co nc lud e that the 24- m onth se nte nc e of i m p ri s o n m en tre s u l t i n g fr o m th e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s re v o ca t i o n o f R i ch ar d s o n ’s supe rv ise d r el ea se is not

an a buse of dis cr et ion . A lth oughthe se nte nc ing gui de lin es r ec om

m en de d ate rm

of im pr iso nm en t r an gin g f

ro m 5 t o 11 m onths, the dis tr ic t c ourt w as not

r equir ed to ap ply the se nte nc ing gui de lin es be ca use it explicitlym entioned th e guidelines anddecided that the recom m ended sentence wa s inadequate und er the c ircum stances. Moreover, a re view of the r ecord es tabl is he s t ha t t he di st ric t co ur t’s cr ed ib il it y fin di ng s ar e su pp or te d, an d t hu s we m ust giv e them

great def erence . Fi na lly , Ri ch ar dsondid

not r ai se in the dis tr ic t c ourt, in his ini tia l br ie f, nor in a m oti on t o f

ile asup ple m en ta l br ie f, ac onst itu tio na l c ha lle nge to the ca lc ulatio n of

his se nte nc e unde r the F ed er al S en te nc ing G uid el ine s. A s su ch , any poss ibl e cl ai m

ba se d onthe U . S. S upr em e Co urt’ s r ec en t de ci sio ns i n United States v. B ooker , 543 U . S. ___ , 125 S . Ct . 738 ___ L . E d. 2d _

__ ( 2005 ), and

1 B lak el y v. W ashi ngton , 542 U. S. ___, 124 S.Ct. 2531 , 159 L. Ed. 2d 40 3 (2004), arg uabl y ha s b een ab an do ne d. Se e U nit ed Sta tes v . Sti nson , 97 F.3d46 6, 4 70 n.2 (1 1thCi r. 199 6) ( de cl ini ng t o r ea chan is sue that the de fe ndant a bandon ed by not raising it in h is initi al brief) . Even if this court cons trued Richardson’ s fact- based5

ch al le nge d to his se nte nc e as a lso im pli ci tly pr es en tin g ac onst itu tio na l c la im f or th e fi rs t t im e o n app eal , su ch a cl ai m wou ldbe rev ie wab le on ly for p la in erro r. See B ooker , 543 U . S. a t __ _, 125 S . Ct . a t 76 9. A n a ppe llate c ourt m ay

not c or re ct an e rr or the de fe ndant f

ai le d to r ai se in the dis tr ic t c ourt un le ss the re is: “ (1 ) er ro r, ( 2) that i s pl ai n, and ( 3) that a ff ec ts subs tantial rights.” U

nit ed Sta tes v . Co tto n , 535 U . S. 625 , 631 , 122 S . Ct . 178 1, 1785 , 152 L . E d. 2d 8 60 ( 2002 ) (quot at ion s and i nte rn al m ar ks o m itt ed ). “ If

a ll thr ee c ondi tio ns are m et , an a ppe llate c ourt m ay

the n e xe rc ise it s di sc re tio n to not ic e a fo rf

ei te d e rr or , but

onl y if ( 4) the e rr or

se ri ousl y a ff ec ts the f ai rn es s, integrity , or publ ic reputation of judicial procee ding s.” Id . ( quot at ion s and internal m arks om itted). N o pl ai n e rr or

e xis ts i n th is c as e be ca

use the f ir st p ro ng o f the te st i s no t sa tis fi ed . T he gui de lin es sy ste m c onc er nin g r ev oc at ionof

sup er vis ed r el ea se un de r whi ch Ric ha rd so n’s s en te nc e was im po se d i s ad vi so ry , no t m an da to ry . See A gui lla rd , 217 F . 3d at 13 20 ( “ ch ap te r 7 gu ide lin es are m er el y a dvi sor y ”) . T hus, the re w as no Booker

e rr or . Mo re ove r, pe rs ua siv e au tho ri ty f ro m the S ec ond Ci rc uit ha s he ld tha t r em an d w as not ne ce ssary

in a re voc at ionc as e in whic h a two-y ear sentence w as im posed up on revocation of sup ervised relea se because, even thoug h the revocation sentence was im posed pre- Booker , the district court, as6

not ed in the ins tant c as e as w el l, appr ec ia te d th e fa ct that the gui de lin e se nte nc ing reg im e was ad vi so ry

wit h re sp ectto rev oc at io n o f su pe rv is edrel eas e. See U nited Sta tes v . F

le m ing , N o. 04-1817, 2005 W L 23720 (2d Cir. F eb. 2, 2005 ). For the above stated rea sons , w e af firm Richardson’ s sentence. AFFIRMED.7

BA RKE T T , Ci rc uit

Jud ge , c onc ur

ri ng: I co nc ur in the r es ult .