[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-10279

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:05-cr-00296-CB-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

MARLON JERELL DAFFIN, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Alabama

________________________

(September 9, 2014)

Case: 14-10279 Date Filed: 09/09/2014 Page: 1 of 4 
2

Before HULL, MARCUS, and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Marlon Daffin appeals the district court’s order revoking his supervised 

release and resentencing him to 24-months imprisonment. Daffin argues that his 

sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court erred in calculating 

his guidelines range. Although Daffin is correct that the district court plainly erred 

in calculating his guidelines range1

—something the United States does not 

dispute—that error did not affect his substantial rights. Therefore, after careful 

review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm.

Because Daffin raises his objections to the district court’s sentencing 

calculations for the first time on appeal, our review is for plain error. United States 

v. Frazier, 605 F.3d 1271, 1282 (11th Cir. 2010). Plain-error review requires that: 

(1) an error occurred; (2) the error was plain; and (3) the error affected the 

defendant’s substantial rights. United States v. Bennett, 472 F.3d 825, 831 (11th 

Cir. 2006) (per curiam). If those three conditions are met, we can then exercise our 

discretion to “notice the forfeited error if the error seriously affects the fairness, 

integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. at 832. “A substantial 

right is affected if the appealing party can show that there is a reasonable 

 1 Chapter 7 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines (USSG), which addresses sentences for 

violations of supervised release, emphasizes reasons that may exist for departing from the range 

of imprisonment set out in the Revocation Table, beyond those that might exist at the time the 

original sentence is imposed. See USSG § 7B1.4 comment. (nn. 1–6).

Case: 14-10279 Date Filed: 09/09/2014 Page: 2 of 4 
3

probability that there would have been a different result had there been no error.” 

Id. at 831–32.

In reviewing the reasonableness of a sentence, we consider whether the 

district court committed a procedural error, such as improperly calculating the 

guidelines range. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 

(2007). However, a guideline range miscalculation does not necessarily affect a 

defendant’s substantial rights. See, e.g., United States v. Pantle, 637 F.3d 1172, 

1177–78 (11th Cir. 2011) (per curiam). In Pantle, the district court’s chosen 

sentence was outside the correct guideline range, but we held that the error did not 

affect the defendant’s substantial rights, in part because the sentencing court could 

have imposed the same sentence despite the miscalculation. Id.

Similar to Pantle, although the district court plainly erred in this case in 

determining Daffin’s guidelines range, this error did not affect his substantial 

rights. The district court told Daffin at a previous revocation hearing that another 

violation would result in “the maximum sentence that [it] can impose in the 

penitentiary,” 24-months imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). At his 

second revocation hearing, the one at issue here, the district court noted Daffin’s 

extensive criminal history and its own leniency after his first violation of 

supervised release. The court stated that the 24-month sentence Daffin was warned 

about was appropriate, although it mistakenly stated that the sentence was within 

Case: 14-10279 Date Filed: 09/09/2014 Page: 3 of 4 
4

the guidelines range. The court sentenced him to the statutory maximum, as it 

previously had stated it would if he violated his supervised release terms again. 

Therefore, Daffin has failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability that he would 

have received a different sentence if the district court had not erred in its 

calculation of the applicable guideline range. See Pantle, 637 F.3d at 1178. 

Because Daffin cannot show that the plain error has affected his substantial rights, 

we affirm. 

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 14-10279 Date Filed: 09/09/2014 Page: 4 of 4