[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 14

- 10010 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 2:12

- tp

- 14010

- JEM

- 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus KELVIN SMITH,
Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

________________________ (July 11, 2014)
Before CARNES , Chief Judge, JORDAN and ANDERSON , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 14-10010 Date Filed: 07/11/2014 Page: 1 of 52 Kel vin Smith appeals his 24

- month sentence , which the district court imposed after it revoked his term of supervised release . The court ordered that

sentence to run consecutively to his four state sentence s of life imprisonment.
I.
In 2005 Smith was convicted in federal district court of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon , in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)

. He was sentenced to 120 months imprisonment and three years supervised release. Two of the
conditions of his supervised release were that he not (1) possess a firearm or (2)
commit other violations of the law

. But while on supervised release in July 2012 , Smith committed a drive

- by shooting. He was tried in Florida court on several charges, including attempted first

- degree murder wit h a firearm . He was f ound guilty and was sentenced to four life terms in Florida prison

. In light of Smith’s state conviction s , t he United States Probation Office filed a superseding petition in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida asking that his federal term of supervised release be revoked . A t the
revocation hearing, Smith and the government agreed that his guidelines range was
24 months imprisonment. Smith also agreed that the government had presented enough evidence to prove that he had violated the conditions of his supervised
release , but he argued that the court should sentence him to a prison term that ran concurrently with h is state sentences

. Rejecting that request, t he district court

Case: 14-10010 Date Filed: 07/11/2014 Page: 2 of 53 sentenced Smith to 24 month s imprisonment to be served consecutively to his four

state sentence s of life imprisonment. Smith now contends that his consecutive

sentence was procedurally unreasonable.
II.
We review for reasonableness a sentence imposed after the revocation of supervised release. United States v. Sweeting , 437 F.3d 1105, 1106

– 07 (11th Cir. 2006)

. While sentences can be reviewed for both procedural and substantive
reasonab leness, Smith challenges his sentence only on procedural reasonable ness grounds

. We review the procedural reasonableness of a sentence to determine whether the court committed a “significant procedural error” in arriving at the

sentence. United States v. Pugh , 515 F.3d 1179, 1190 (11th Cir. 2008).
A district court h as discretion in deciding whether to impose concurrent or
consecutive sentences. See 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a); United States v. Quinones , 136 F.3d 1293, 12 94

– 95 (11th Cir. 1998)

. It must take into account two things when making that decision. First, t he court must consider the sentencing factors in § 3553(a). 1 See id. § 3584(b). Second, it must consider the policy statements
found in Chapter 7 of the Unite d States Sentencing Guidelines , even though they

1 Those factors include: (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need for deterrence; (3) the need to protect the public; (4) the need to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training or medical care; (5) the s entencing g uidelines range; (6) pertinent policy statements of the Sentencing Commission; (7) the need to avoid unwanted sentencing disparities; and (8) the need to provide restitution to victims. See 18 U.S.C . § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B)

– (D), (a)(4)

– (7).

Case: 14-10010 Date Filed: 07/11/2014 Page: 3 of 54 are not binding

. United States v. Silva , 443 F.3d 795, 799 (11th Cir. 2006)

. Notably, those two obligations overlap

. Section 3553(a) itself requires that sentencing courts consider the s entencing g uidelines’ policy statements , including those in Chapter 7

. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(4)(B), (a)(5).
The record here establishes that the district court properly considered the § 3553(a) factors and the policy statements in Chapter 7

. First, the court stated that Smith “needs to have [] extra time for this” supervised release violation, which
shows that the court considered Smith’s history and characteristics , as well as the
need for deterrence

. See id. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C). Second, the record
establishes that, in accordance with § 3553(a) and our case law, the court properly
considered the policy statements found in Chapter 7 of the s entencing g uidelines

. Though only advisory, t hose policy statements make clear that Smith’s federal prison term should run consecutively to his state sentences. Section 7B1.3(f) says : Any term of imprisonment imposed upon the revocation of probation or supervised release shall be ordered to be served consecutively to any sentence of imprisonment that the defendant is serving, whether or not the sentence of imprisonment being served resulted from the conduct that is the basis of the revocation of probation or supervised release.
U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f); see also Ch. 7, Pt. B, intro. cmt. ( “ I t is the policy of the Commission that the sanction imposed upon revocation is to be served consecutively to any other term of imprisonment imposed for any criminal conduct
that is the basis of the revocation.” )

. T he district court may not have explicitly

Case: 14-10010 Date Filed: 07/11/2014 Page: 4 of 55 mention ed the § 3553(a) factors or the policy statements when handing down
Smith’s sentence , but what matters is that the record shows that the court did
consider them. See United States v. Dorman , 488 F.3d 936, 944 (11th Cir. 2007)

. And the c ourt was well within its discretion to give the § 3553(a) factors and the policy statements the weight that it did. See United States v. Amedeo , 487 F.3d 823, 832 (11th Cir. 2007). Smith’s consecutive sentence is not procedurally
unreasonable. 2
AFFIRMED.

2 Smith contends that the district court committed procedural error in others ways, too

. But each of those arguments fails. Contrary to Smith’s assertions, the district court did not base its sentence on clear ly erroneous facts , fail to properly consider Smith’s argument s in favor of a concurrent sentence , or fail to adequately explain the reasons behind the sentence it imposed

. Because t hose arguments are contrary to the record and lack any merit , we reject t hem.

Case: 14-10010 Date Filed: 07/11/2014 Page: 5 of 5