FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT MAR 22, 2007 THOMAS 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N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T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. 06- 1332 9 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D. C. Docket N o. 92-00023 -CR- W DO -5 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us CHRIS TOPHER JACKSON, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of G eo rg ia

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- (M ar ch 22, 200 7) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, BL A CK and M A RC U S, Ci rc uit

Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:I n J ul y 20 03 , J ack so n’ s p ro batio n o ff ic e r a lle g e d th at Jac ks on vio late d th e te rm s o f h is 1 su pe rv ise d r e le a se by

(1 ) f a ili ngto r e po rt

to t he pr ob atio n o ff

ic e a s dir e c te d, (2 ) f

a ili ngto s ub mit

a monthly repor t, (3) failing to f

ollow the probation office r’s instructions, inc luding repor ting to the Geor g ia Depa

rtment of L abor a

nd makingjob contacts, (4) failingto work re gularly at a law ful occupation, (5) fa iling to notify the probation office r of a chang e in re sidence , (6) usinga contr olled su bs tanc e be c a

us e Jac ks on ’s ur ine sp e c ime n te ste d p os iti ve fo r m ari jua na us e , a nd (7 ) f a ili ngto participate in an appr oved substance abuse tre atment program. At a September 2003 r evocation hear ing, where J ackson admitted to violating the terms of his supervised re lease , the district court continued Jackson’s ca se for six months a nd explained to J ackson that he had to par ticipate in drug testing a nd follow the instructions of his prob at i o n o ffice r. In Marc h 2004, J ackson’ s probation of fi c e r all eged th at Jac ks on c ontin ue d f a ili ngto ( 1) re po rt

to t he pr ob atio n o ff

ic e , ( 2) su

bmi t a monthly repor t, (3) follow t h e p robation off icer ’s instructions, including pr oviding the pr obation office with weekly job c ontact sheets, and ( 4) work r egularly at a law ful occ upation. At his second revoc ation hear ing, J ackson admitted to violating his supervised r elea se conditions as alleg ed by the pr ob atio n o ff

ic e r; and the dis tr ic t c ourt

se nte nc e d Jac ks on

to 6 0 mo nth s’ imp ri so nme nt. 2 De fendant-Appellant Christopher Jackson appeals hi s 60-m onth sentence im pose d a ft er

the dis tr ic t c ourt r ev oke d hi s su pe rv ise d r el ea se . N o r ev er sib le 1
e rr o r h a s b e e ns h o w n ; w e a f

f i rm. Jackson argues that his 60-m onth sentence, which exce eded his advis ory
se nte nc ing r an ge of

thr ee to nin e m onths’ im pr iso nm en t, w as unr ea sona ble be ca use the dis tr ic t c ourt f

ai le d to c onsi de r suf

fi ci en tly the f ac tor s se t out at 18 U
. S. C. § 35 53( a)
. Ja ck son al so a sse rt s th at the dis tr ic t c ourt sh oul d have considered that, although Jackson didviolate the term s of his sup ervised relea se, he did not c om m it ne wsub stanti ve of

fe nse s. I n a ddi tio n, Ja ck son not es that hi s unde rl y ing vio latio n f

or pos se ssi on w ithint en t t o di str ibu te c oc ai ne ba se w as his first offe nse; and he argues that alternative sanctions cou ld have provid ed ad equa te pu ni sh m en t i n t hi s ca se .Th e pa rt ie s d o n ot d isp ute tha

t th e statut or

y maximumse nte nc e in t

his c a se wa s 6 0 mo nth s’ 2 imprisonment, see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)( 3), or that the advisory sentenc ing rang e -- provided by the po lic y state me nts fr om Chap te r 7 of the Se nte nc ingGu ide lin e s - - w a s thre e to n ine months ’ imprisonm ent. S ee U .S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a) (providingthis sentencingrang e for Gra de C supervised rele ase violations and a

criminal history cate g ory of I ). There fore , J ackson’ s 60-month sentenc e wa s above the Chapter 7 Guide lines rang e but did not exceed the statutory maxi mum. Although Jackson objected to the district c ourt sentenc ing him outside of t he Guidelines rang e, J ackson doe s not argue on appea l that the district court abuse d its discretion in sentencingh i m above the Chapter 7 Guidelines ra

ng e; there fore , this argument is abandone d. See United States v. Silva, 443 F.3d 795, 798 (11th Cir. 2006) (ex plaining that we r eview the district court’s de cision to ex cee d the advisory Chapter 7 Guide lines ra n ge fo r abuse of discre tion); United States v. Ford, 270 F .3d 1346, 1347 (11th Cir. 2001) (notingthe “we ll established rule . . . that issues and c ontentions not ti mely raised in t he br ie fs are de e me d ab and on e d” ). We co ns ide r onl y Jac ks on ’s c ha lle ng e to t he re a so na

ble ne ss of his sentenc e. 3 Jackson was sentenced for violating the term s of his sup ervised relea se after the S upr em e Co urt i ssu ed it s de ci sio n inU nit ed

S tate s v. Bo oke r, 125 S
. Ct
. 738 (2005); so we reviewhis sentence for re asonableness in the light o f the fa ctors set out in 18 U
. S. C. § 35 53( a)
. U nit ed S tate s v. S w ee tin g, 437 F
. 3d 1 105, 110 6- 07 2 (1 1thCi r. 200 6)
. Unde r se ct ion355 3( a) , adis tr ic t c ourt sh oul d c onsi de r, a m ong oth er thi ngs, the na tur e an d c ir cum stanc es of the of fe nse , the his tor

y and ch ar ac te ri sti cs of

the de fe ndant, the ne ed

f or a de quate de te rr en ce and p ro te ct ionof the pub lic , pol ic y

state m en ts o f the S en te nc ing Co m m iss ion , pr ovi sio n f

or the
m ed ic al and e duc at ion al ne ed s of the de fe ndant, and the ne ed to av oid
un warra nt edsen te nc in g d is pa rit ie s. See 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a)(1 )-(7 ). W e co nc lud e that Ja ck son’ s se nte nc e w as r ea sona ble
. H is s en te nc e w as not ab ov e th e st atut ory

m ax im um of 6 0 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t. See 18 U.S.C. §4

3583 (e)( 3). Although Jackson’s sentence exceeded significantly the advisory
se nt en ci ng ran ge set ou t i n t he Ch ap te r 7 p ol ic y st at em en ts , see U.S.S.G. § 7B 1.4 (a), t he di st ric t co ur t was no t re qu ire d t o s en te nc e Ja ck so n wi th in th atran ge . See United States v. Brown, 224 F.3d 1237, 1242 (11th Cir. 2000) (explaining th at
a dis tr ic t c ourt m

ust c onsi de r, but

is not bound b y , the pol ic y

state m en ts o f Ch ap te r 7 of

the S en te nc ing G uid el ine s in im posi ng s en te nc e uponr ev oc at ionof supervised release). E ven before the Suprem e Court’ s decision in Booker, when ap pli catio n of

the se nte nc ing r an ge s pr ovi de d by the G uid el ine s w as c onsi de re d to be m an da tor

y , the Ch ap te r 7 po lic y

state m en ts o n r ev oc at ionof sup er vis ed r el ea se
w er e non- bin din g r ec om

m en da tio ns. S ee U nit ed

S tate s v. H of

ie rk a, 83 F
. 3d 3 57, 361 (11t h Cir. 1996 ) (“ [T ] he Chapter 7 sentencing range is a m ere policy state m en t and n ot a

gui de lin e (i n th e se nse of bin din g c ourts)
. . . . ”)
. S en te nc ing courts wer e -- and are -- r equired to consid er these policy statem ents; but they

are
no t b ou ndto fol lo w th em . See i d. Ina ddi tio n, a ft er

Ja ck son adm itt ed

in 2003 to vio latin g th e te rm s of his supe rv ise d r el ea se - - inc lud ing by te sti ng p osi tiv e fo r m ar ij uanause and f ai lin g to fo llo whis pr obatio n of

fi ce r’ s in str

uc tio ns - - the dis tr ic t c ourt gave Ja ck son another oppo rtunity

to com ply with the term s of his sup ervised relea se, which Jackson failed to do
. During Jackson’s r evocation hearings, the district courtTo the extent that J ac k s on argues that his sentenc e is unrea sonable be cause the g overnme nt’s 3 agree ment with his 60-month sentence conflicts with the g overnme nt’s ear lier dec ision -- as par t of J ackson’ s sentencingfor his under lying of fense -- to file a

motion for downwar d depar ture ba sed on Jac ks on ’s su

bs tanti a l a ssi sta

nc e , w e re je c t th is c la im a s w ith out me ri t.

5 heard Jackson’ s argum ents about h is educational backgrou nd and work histo ry . In sentencing Jackso n, the district court explained that it consi dered the Chapter 7 policy statem ents and determ ined that Jackson ’ s adviso ry Guidelines range w as ina de quate . T he dis tr ic t c ourt a lso not ed Ja ck son’ s on goi ng s ubst an ce abuse
. T he district court was not required to state on the record that it explicitly considered
ea chof the se ct ion355 3( a) f

ac tor s. U nit ed

S tate s v. S co tt, 426 F
. 3d 1 324, 132 9 (1 1thCi r. 200 5) ( expla ini ng tha t “ nothin g inBo oke r or e lse w he re r equir es the dis tr ic t c ourt t o st at e on the r ec or d th at it ha s e xpl ic itl y

c onsi de re d e ac h of

the
se ct io n 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s o r to di sc us s ea chof t he sec ti on 35 53 (a) fa ct or s” ). Nothing in the rec ord convin ces us the sentence w as unreasonable. 3 AFFIR MED.