### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT S eptember 30 , 2 005 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T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- 1437 8 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ D. C. Docket N o. 01-00731 -CR- AS G UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us LEONARDO FERNAND EZ, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the Southern D istrict of Florida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ (S ep te m be r 30, 200 5) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, H U L L a nd W IL SO N , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

L eo nard o F er

nande z ap pe al s hi s 16 -m onth se nte nc e im pose d a ft er

he vio la te d hi s pr oba tio n. F er nande z ar gue s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

by inc re as ing his se nte nc e be y ond the appl ic ab le gui de lin e range a nd v iol at ed his due pr oc es s rig ht s b y gi vi ng no no ti ce o f it s i nt en t t o i nc reas e h is sen te nc e in th is m an ne r. No
r e v e r s i b l e e rr o r

h a s b e e n s h o w n ; w e a f

f i rm. Fe rn an de z w as c onvi ct ed in 2002 of

c onsp ir ac y

to co m m it carg o th ef

t, in vio la tio n of

18 U
. S. C. § 37 1. H is g uid el ine r an ge w as 10 t o 16 m onths’ im pr iso nm en t; but

the dis tr ic t c ourt se nte nc ed him to a “ ve ry

le nie nt” tw o y ears ’ pr oba tio n. I n 20 03, F er

nande z vio la te d hi s pr oba tio n by ( 1) c onsp ir ing to co m

m it
carg o th ef

t and p oss es sin g st ole n pr ope rty , in vio la tio n of 18 U
. S. C. §§ 3 71, 659 , an d ( 2) le av ing the j udi ci al dis tr ic t w ith out pe rm iss ion
. A t the pr oba tio n vi ola tio n h ea ri n g , t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt n o t ed t h at t h e g u i d el i n e c al cu l at i o n fo r F ern an d ez ’s pr oba tio n vi ola tio n w as 4 t o 10 m onths’ im pr iso nm en t, w ithastatut or y m ax im um 5- y ear se nte nc e. B ut the dis tr ic t c ourt a dvi se d F er nande z tha t i t w as not

goi ng t o decide then whether to sentence him within the guid eline range, it would consid er further discussion from

the governm ent on what the proper sentence should be, and that the court’ s onlyrestriction in determ ining the sentence w as the statutory
m axim um . The c ourt also no ted that it initi ally had given Fernandez a “ veryFe rnande z only reque sted that the district court se ntence him within t he re commended guideline 1 rang e. 3 lenient sentence”, and that Fernandez had com m itted a sim ilar cr im e only a y ear int o hi s pr oba tio n. A t se nte nc ing , the dis tr ic t c ourt r ev oke d F er nande z’ s pr oba tio n and sentenced him

to 16 m onth s’ im

prisonm ent. I n determ ining that a departure out sid e the gui de lin e range w as w ar rante d, the c ourt c onc lud ed ( 1) that, due to Fe rn an de z’ s r ep eate d c ri m ina l be ha vio r, the gui de lin e range did not r ef le ct the seriousness of the violation s, and (2) that a 16-m onth sentence w ould have been at the hig h e nd o f the gui de lin es w he n th e dis tr ic t c ourt i m pose d th e ini tia l, le nie nt sentence. W e re vie wf

or a n a buse of dis cr et ionadis tr ic t c ourt’ s de ci sio n to e xc ee d th e sentencing range recom

m ended in Chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines. U nited St at es v. H of

ie rk a, 83 F
. 3d 3 57, 861 -6 2 ( 11th C ir
. 199 6)
. A nd, a s F er nande z did not r ai se be lowhis a rg um en t a bout the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f

ai lur e to g ive not ic e of

it s intent to exceed the guideline range, we reviewthat argum ent for plain err or. See 1 United States v. Aguillard, 217 F.3d 131 9, 1320 (11th Cir. 2000 ). In fashioning a sentence a fter a defendant violates probatio n, a district court is to cons ider, but is n ot required to follow, the guideline range set out in ChapterIn an y e v e n t, w e n o te th at, at th e in it ia l p r o b ati o n v io lati o n h e ar in g , th e d is tr ic t c ourt advised 2 Fe rnande z that it would not se ntence him within the g uideline rang e at that time a nd that the cour

t was bound only

by the statutory

maxi mum five-y ear

sentenc e. 4 7 of the S en te nc ing G uid el ine s. S ee 18 U
. S. C. § 35 53( a) (4 )( B) ; H of ie rk a, 83 F
. 3d at 360-61 (statin g that Chapter 7 m erely is a policy

statem ent, not a m andatory guid eline). A s the Chapter 7 guidelin es m erely are advisory , “ it is enoug h that there is som e indication th e district court wa s aware of and consi dered them .” A gui llard , 217 F
. 3d a t 13 20. H er e, the dis tr ic t c ourt i ndi cate d th at it w as a w ar e of
an d c onsi de re d th e gui de lin e range . B ut t he dis tr ic t c ourt r ej ec te d th at r an ge a nd im posed a hig her sentence bec ause Fer nandez com

m itted new, sim ilar offe nses
soona ft er he be gan hi s te rm

of pr oba tio n. T he dis tr ic t c ourt a buse d no dis cr et ion in s en te nc ing F er

nande z be y ond the Ch ap te r 7 r ec om m en de d r an ge . A nd the district court was not required to give notice that it was excee ding the Chapter 7
range . S ee H of

ie rk a, 83 F
. 3d a t 36 2- 63 ( statin g th at dis tr ic t c ourt ne ed

not giv e not ic e of int en t t o e xc ee d C ha

pte r 7 r an ge be ca

use e xc ee din g th is r an ge is not departure). W e see no er ror in the m anner in which the district court sentenced 2 Fe rn an de z af

te r re voki ng h is p ro ba tio n. AFFIR MED.