FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT DEC 29 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 13638 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 2 - 0 0 2 1 2 - CR- 1 - CG U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s G E R A L D A L P H O N S E J O Y N E R , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e So u th e rn D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( D e c e m b e r 29, 2006) B efo re B L A C K , H U L L an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: G e r a l d A l phons e J oy ne rappe a l s hi s 24- m onth s e nt e nc e i m pos e d f or2

v i o l a t i n g th e t e rms o f

h i s s u p e rv i s e d r e l e a s e . A f t e rr e v i e w , w e a f

f i rm. I . B AC KG RO UN D J oy ne rpl e d gui l ty t o be i ng a f e l on i n pos s e s s i on of

a f i r e a rm , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 922( g) ( 1) . H e w a s s e nt e nc e d t o 27 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e nt , t o be fol l ow ed by three ye ar s’ supervi se d rel ea se . A s acond i t i on of hi s s up ervi se d r e l e a s e , J oy ne rw a s t o r e f r a i n f r om e xc e s s i ve us e of

a l c ohol a nd pr ohi bi t e d f r om pu rc hasi ng , po ss es si ng or usi ng a c on trol l ed subst ance . Joynerw as al so re qu i re d t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n a l c o h o l a n d d ru g t e s t i n g a n d a tr e a tme n tp r o g r a m. A ft erse rvi ng hi s pri son t erm , Joynerbegan h i s s up ervi se d rel ea se on M ar ch 7, 20 05 . Joynerre peat edl y t es t ed po si t i ve for e i ther c ocai ne or ethano l . A ft er Joyneradm i tt ed t o h i s probat i on offi ce r thathe had u se d cocai ne, Joynerw as pl a c e d i n a s ubs t a nc e abus e pr ogr a m . W he n he a ga i n t e s t e d pos i t i ve f ore tha nol on thr e e oc c a s i ons , J oy ne ra gr e e d t o pa r t i c i pa t e i n a 90- da y r e s i de nt i a l tr e a tm e nt prog ra m . A ft ercom pl et i ng the 90 -dayprog ra m , ho w ever , Joyneragai n t es t ed pos i t i ve f

orc oc a i ne a nd a dm i tt e d tha t , be c a us e he ha d e xpe c t e d a pos i t i ve ur i na l y s i s , he ha d s ubs t i tut e d s om e one e l s e ’ s ur i ne f orhi s ow n. J oy ne r ’ s pr oba t i on offi ce r pet i t i on ed the di stri ctcourtfor r evocat i on of Joyner ’ s s up ervi se d rel ea se . A tthe r e voc a t i on he a r i ng, J oy ne ra dm i tt e d hi s vi ol a t i ons a nd t o ha vi ng a

“ drug prob l em . ” B as ed on hi s G ra de C vi ol at i on s a nd a c ri m i nal hi st ory c at egory3

o f IV , Jo yn er’ s ad v i so ry C h ap t er 7 g u i d el i n es ran g e w as 6 t o 1 2 m o n th s’ i m pr i s onm e nt . S e e U . S . S . G . § 7B 1. 4( a ) . T he s t a tut ory m a xi m um t e rm of i m pri sonm entw as tw o yea rs . S ee 18 U . S . C . § 3 58 3(3)(3). Joynerre qu es t ed that he be se nt ence d t o 6 m on ths’ com m un i ty c on fi nem entata hal fw ayho use s o that he c oul d r e c e i ve drug tr e a tm e nta nd m a i nt a i n hi s abi l i ty t o w ork. T he gove rnm e nt m a de no r e c om m e nda t i on a s t o s e nt e nc e , butr e que s t e d tha tJ oy ne rnotbe puton supervi se d rel ea se fol l ow i ng hi s t erm of i m pri sonm entbecause i tbel i eved Joyner w ou l d b e unabl e t o com pl y w i th the t erm s of s up ervi se d rel ea se . In se nt enci ng Joyner , the di stri ctcourtexpres sl y not ed thati thad

“ c ons i de r e d the s e nt e nc i ng gui de l i ne s ” a s w e l l a s “ J oy ne r ’ s ba c kgr ound a nd h i st o ry, ” an d th at , “ [b ] ased o n h i s ex t en si v e cri m i n al h i st o ry an d h i s u n w i l l i n g n ess t o abi de by the c ondi t i ons of pr oba t i on, ” a gui de l i ne r a nge s e nt e nc e w a s not appr opr i a t e . T he di s tr i c tc our tf ur the re xpl a i ne d tha tJ oy ne rha d be e n us i ng drugs even aft erbei ng perm i tt ed t o p art i ci pat e i n the 90 -daydrug prog ra m . F urtherm ore, the c our tf

ound tha tJ oy ne rf

a i l e d t o “ c om pl y [ ] w i th the or de r s a nd di r e c t i ve s of the prob at i on offi ce , ” a nd i nst ea d “ ac tual l y a tt em pt [e d] t o d ec ei ve” the offi ce . B as ed o n th e ab o v e , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t s e n te n c e d J o y n e rto 2 4 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t, w ith a n e v a lu a tio n f

o rp o te n tia l d ru g ab u s e a n d p a r tic ip a tio n in a tr e a tm e n t p r o g r a m if nece ss ary. Joynerobj ec t ed t o the se nt ence as un re as on abl e, bu tthe courtdi sa gree d4

ba s e d on i t s e va l ua t i on of “ a l l the c i r c um s t a nc e s . ” T hi s appe a l f ol l ow e d. I I . DI S CUS S I ON O n app ea l , Joynerar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourtfa i l ed t o con si der the fa ct ors i n 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) i n i m po si ng hi s s ent ence and that , had the di stri ctcourt prop er l y c on si dere d the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors, i tw ou l d h ave c on cl ud ed that co n fi n em en ti n a co m m u n i ty h al fw ay h o u se fo r d ru g treatm en tw as th e m o st ap p r o p r ia te p u n is h m e n t u n d e rth e s e c ir c u m s ta n c e s . Af t e rUn i t e d S t a t e s v . B o o k e r , 5 4 3 U. S . 2 2 0 , 1 2 5 S . C t . 7 3 8 ( 2 0 0 5 ) , we r e vi e w a s e nt e nc e i m pos e d upon r e voc a t i on of s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e f

or r e a s onabl e ne s s i n l i ghtof the f a c t or s i n § 3553( a ) . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S w e e t i ng, 437 F . 3d 11 05 , 11 06 -07 (11 th C i r. 20 06 ). W e have concl ud ed that“ no thi ng i n B oo ker o re ls e w h e r e r e q u ir e s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t to s ta te o n th e r e c o r d th a t it h a s e x p lic itly consi dere d eac h o f the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors or t o d i sc uss e ac h o f the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. S cott , 42 6 F . 3d 13 24 , 13 29 (11th C i r. 20 05 ). R ather, an i nd i ca t i on thatthe di stri ctcourthas c on si dere d a defendant ’ s a rgum ent s a nd the § 3553( a ) f a c t or s i s s uf

f i c i e nt . I d. a t1330. H e r e , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t e x p lic itly m e n tio n th e § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f a c to r s . H ow ever , the ar gu m ent s of the part i es before the di stri ctcourtand the di stri ct c o u r t’s s ta te d r e a s o n s f

o rim p o s in g a s e n te n c e ab o v e th e g u id e lin e s r a n g e im p lic a te5

se vera l § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors. S peci fi ca l l y, the di stri ctcourtexpl i ci t l y c on si dere d J o y n e r ’s b a c k g r o u n d , c r im in a l h is to ry a n d d ru g p r o b le m , h is p a s t u n w illin g n e s s to abi de by the c ondi t i ons of pr oba t i on a nd hi s a tt e m pt s t o de c e i ve the pr oba t i on offi ce by subst i tut i ng som eone el se ’ s uri ne sa m pl e. In other w ords, the di stri ct courtconsi dere d the hi st ory a nd char ac t er i st i cs of the defendant , the ci rc um st ance s o f o f f e n s e a n d th e n e e d f

o rm e d ic a l tr e a tm e n t a n d d e te rr e n c e . S e e 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) ( 1 ) , ( 2 ) ( B ) , ( 2 ) ( D ) . F u r th e rm o r e , w e c a n n o t s a y th a t J o y n e r ’s 2 4 - m o n th se nt ence w as un re as on abl e und erthe fa ctual ci rc um st ance s of thi s c as e. AF F I RME D.