FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MARCH 5, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 14 18 3; 11 -1 41 84 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNos . 1: 01 -cr- 00 03 3- MP- AK-1, 1 :0 8- cr-0 00 19 -MP -AK-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us KELVIN TREMAYNE W HITE, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal s fr om

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ern Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma rch 5, 2 01 2) Befo re CARNES, HULL andW ILSON, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Inth es e co ns ol id at edap pe al s, Kel vi n Whi te ch al le ng es hi s t ot al 84 -m on thse nt en ce i m

po se d upo n re vo cat io n o f hi s t wo co nc urren t s up erv is ed -rel eas e te rm s. At t he rev oc at io n h eari ng , th e d is tri ctco urt fo un d— ba se d o n Whi te ’s no co nt es t p le a an d t he go ve rn m en t’s fa ctua l p ro ffer —t ha t Whi te ha d v io la te d the te rm s o f hi s s up erv is edrel eas e b y tra ffi ck in g i n c oc ai ne . The d is tri ctco urt h eard Whi te ’s evi de nc e in m it ig at io n a ndall oc ut io n. Th e d is tri ctco urt t he n, wi th ou t fu rth er co m

m en t, s en te nc edWhi te to 60 m on th s as to cas e num be r 1: 01 -cr- 33 an d 24 m on th s as to cas e n um be r 1: 08 -cr- 19 , wit h t he term s t o ru n c on se cu ti ve ly. Whi te ob jecte d t o t he 60 -m on th term as o ut si de th e g ui de li ne s ra ng e an d t o th e im po si ti on of c on se cu ti ve term s. In res po ns e, th e d is tri ctco urt s ta te d, “ It i s be y on d t he ad vi so ry

gu id el in e ran ge bu t i t i s n otbe y on d t he st atut ory ran ge .” 1 The di st ric t co urt t he n i m pl ic it ly ove rru le d Whi te ’s ob jecti on s, n ot in g t ha t t he

“ ob jecti on s ar e o n t he reco rd .” On ap pe al , Whi te arg ue s t ha t t he di st ric t co urt erredbe cau se itdi d n ot m en ti on Whi te ’s adv is ory gu id el in es ran ge or t he 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s o r ex pl ai n t he sen te nc es itim po se d, o ne of wh ic h app aren tl y in cl ud edanup ward va ria nc e to th e st atut ory

m ax im um . The g ov ern m en t co nc ed es erro r an d a gr ees
Acc ordingto the probation off icer ’s memora

ndum, to which the district court did not 1 ref er dur ing the revoc ation proce eding s, the statutory maxi mum prison term the district court could impose in case number 1:01-c r-33 wa s 60 months and the applicable guidelines rang e wa s 46 to 57 months. For ca se number 1:08- cr- 19, the statutory maxi mum and the applica ble guidelines rang e wa s 24 months. 2th atrem an d i s warran te d.

Afte r rev ie win g t he tra ns cri ptof the rev oc at io n p ro ceed in gs , we con cl ud e th atth e rec or d i s i ns uf

fic ie ntto de te rm in e whe th er t he di st ric t co urt ca lc ul at ed ad vi so ry gu id el in es ran ge s o r co ns id eredth e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s i n i m po si ng Whi te ’s pri so n t erm s. Th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t i de nt ify the cri m in al cla ss ifi cat io n fo r Whi te ’s vi ol at io n o r th e ap pl ic ab le gu id el in es ran ge s u nd er U.S.S.G. § 7 B1 .1. The di st ric t co urt al so di d n otst at e th atitha d c on si de redth e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s o r ex pl ai n t he ch os ensen te nc es in a way th atwou ldin di cat e itha d c on si de redth e § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s. Acco rd in gl y , we vac at e Whit e’s se nt en ces an d re m an d t o t he di st ric t co urt fo r res en te nc in g i n a cco rd an ce wi th Uni te d S ta te s v . Cam pb el l, 4 73 F.3 d 1 34 5, 1 34 9 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 7) , andUni te d S ta te s v . Qui no ne s, 1 36 F.3d12 93 , 12 94 -9 5 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 8) . Becaus e we co nc lu de th atth e rec or d i s i ns uf fic ie ntfor 2 ap pe ll at e rev ie w, we do no t ad dr es s t he reas on ab le ne ss of t he sen te nc es im po se d. VACATED AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCI NG.

See United States v. Campbell, 473 F .3d 1345, 1349 (11th Cir. 2007) (va catingand 2 rema nding where district court fa iled to mention advisory guidelines rang e or the criminal classification for the def

endant’ s violation during r evocation hearing ); United States v. White, 416 F.3d 1313, 1318 ( 11th Cir. 2005) (re quiringsentenc ing c ourt to consider, inter alia, the § 3553(a) fac tors and the se ntencingrang e bef ore r evokingsupervised r elea se and imposinga prison term); United States v. Quinone s, 136 F.3d 1293, 1294-95 ( 11th Cir. 1998) (applying § 3584 to revoc ation proce eding s); see a lso 18 U.S.C. § 3584(b) (requir ing se ntencingcourt to consider § 3553( a) f

actor s in determiningwhether to impose concurr ent or c onsecutive te rms). 3