[DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 2- 12 91 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock et No. 1 :0 4- cr-0 01 43 -ODE-AJB -1

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us EDNECDIA (TINA) JOHNSON, a.k .a. Tin a Sm it h, D efen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Dece m be r 28 , 20 12 ) Befo re WILSON, JOR DAN, and ANDERSON, Circu it Ju dg es . PER CURI AM: Afte r rev ok in g he r t e r m of su pe rv is ed rel eas e, th e di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced Edn ecd ia Jo hn so n to 24 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t, whi ch was ab ov e th e ad vi so ry ran ge Case: 12-12911 Date Filed: 12/28/2012 Page: 1 of 7su gg es te d by th e Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s. Ms

. Jo hn so n ap pe al s th at se nt en ce, arg ui ng

th at it is un reas on ab le an d th at th e di st ric t cou rt, by fai li ng to he ar her argu m en ts in

m it ig at io n, v io la te d h er d ue pro ces s ri gh ts . W e aff irm. I. Ms

. Jo h n s o n , w h o at th e rev oc at io n he ari ng ch os e no t to co nt es t th e al le ge d vi ol at i o ns , do es no t ta ke is su e wit h th e rev oc at io n of su pe rv is ed rel eas e it se lf. In st ead , sh e co nt en ds th at he r se nt en ce is un reas on ab le be cau se it is ab ov e th e 4- to
10 -m on th gu id el in es ran ge . Sh e arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t fai le d to co ns id er bo th th e gu id el in es ran ge an d th e 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a) fact or s, d i d n o t gi ve ap pr op ria te weig ht to he r m it ig at io n ev id en ce, an d ne ve r id en ti fie d th e cri m in al cl as si fic atio ns fo r he r vi ol at io n. W e ha ve ex pl ai ne d th at whe re “ a de fen da nt [h as ] vi ol at ed a co nd i t i on of

su pe rv is ed rel eas e, th e di st ric t co ur t m ay rev ok e th e te rm of su pe rv is io n an d im po se

a te rm of impr is on m en t aft er co ns id eri ng ” th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s. Uni te d St at es v. Ca mpb el l , 47 3 F.3 d 13 45 , 13 48 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 07 ). Onc e th e di st ric t co ur t ha s m ad e it s
se nt en ci ng de ci si on , we rev ie w it “ on ly fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n, an d we us e a two -s te p pr oc es s.” Uni t e d S t a t es v. Sh aw , 56 0 F.3 d 12 30 , 12 37 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 09 ). W e “ fir st

en su re th at th e di st ric t co ur t co m m it te d no si gn ifi can t pr oc ed ur a l e r r o r , ” su ch as fai li ng to co ns id er th e gu id el in es ran ge or th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s. Gal l v. Uni te d St at es ,
2 Case: 12-12911 Date Filed: 12/28/2012 Page: 2 of 755 2 U.S. 38 , 4 9 , 51 (2 00 7)

. Bu t be cau se th e gu id el in es are, an d ha ve al way s be en ,

ad vi so ry “ fo r se ntenc es im po se d up on rev oc at io n of su pe rv is ed rel eas e, it is su ffi ci en t th at th ere be so m e in di cat io n th at th e di st ric t co ur t was aware of an d co ns id ered ” th e
se nt en ci ng ran ge th ey es ta bl is h. Ca mpb el l , 47 3 F.3 d at 13 49 (ci ta ti on s an d qu ot at io n

m ark s om it te d)

. Onc e we are sa ti sf ie d th at a se nt en ce is pr oc ed ur al ly so un d, we th en weig h it s “ su bs ta nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss ,” t a k i n g i nt o acco un t th e “ to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces .” Gal l , 55 2 U.S. at 51

. Ms

. Jo hn so n’s se nt en ce, de sp it e be in g 14 m on th s ab ov e th e to p en d of th e ad vi so ry gu id el in es , i s reas on ab le

. Alt ho ug h Ms

. Jo hn so n arg ue s th at th e di st ric t

co ur t fai le d to co ns id er th e gu id el in es ran ge , th e reco rd do es no t su pp or t su ch a
co nc lu si on . The di st ric t co ur t cert ai nl y kn ew th e su gg es te d ran ge , at on e po in t ev en pr om pt in g Ms

. Jo hn so n’s co un se l to co rrec t hi m se lf whe n he m is st at ed it as 4 to 6

m on th s. The co ur t si m

pl y fo un d th e ran ge in ad eq ua te , as Ms

. Jo hn so n ha d co m m it te d

“ ne w, se rio us cri m in al co nd uc t” th at was “ ba si cal ly th e sa m e” as th e cri m in al co nd uc t

un de rlyin g he r or ig in al co nv ic ti on . As a res ul t, th e co ur t fo un d th at “ a se nt en ce of 24

m on th s is real ly m in im al in te rm s of de te rri ng fu tu re . . . m is co nd uc t.” Pu t si m pl y , th e
co ur t de ci de d “ to gi ve a s en te nc e th at ’s ab ov e th e ad vi so ry gu id el in e” be cau se it

m os t “ ad eq ua te ly refl ect [ed ] th e se rio us ne ss of th e of f e n s e ” an d was m os t

“ ap pr o p r i a te in li gh t of [Ms

. Jo hn so n]’ s ch arac te ris ti cs of co nt in ui ng frau du le nt
3 Case: 12-12911 Date Filed: 12/28/2012 Page: 3 of 7co nd uc t.” Th ere i s n ot hi ng un reas on ab le ab ou t t ha t d eci si on .

The di st ric t co ur t’s ex pl an at io n of th e se nt en ce m ak es cl ear th at , in ad di ti on to kn owi ng an d co ns id eri ng th e gu id el in es ran ge , it kn ew an d co ns id ered th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s. The co ur t us ed la ng ua ge ta ke n di rect ly fro m § 35 53 (a) in it s ex pl an at io n, an d, be fo re gi vi ng th at ex pl an at io n, th e co ur t in di cat ed th at it wou ld reci te th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s des pi te no t kn owi ng whe th er it was “ req ui red to st at e [th em ] at a rev oc at io n he ari ng or no t.” Si m il arl y , th e reco rd sh ows th at th e di st ric t co ur t kn ew th e cri m in al cl as si fic at io n of Ms

. Jo hn so n’s vi ol at io ns : Ms

. Jo hn so n’s co un se l br ou gh t th em to the

co ur t’s at te nt io n s e v e r a l ti m es , an d th os e cl as si fic at io ns fo rm ed th e ba si s fo r th e ap pl ic ab le ad vi so ry

gu id el in es ran ge , whi ch th e co ur t kn ew an d co ns id ered de sp it e de ci di ng to va ry

ab ov e it

. Ms . Jo hn so n’s fi na l p ro ced ur al co nc ern —t ha t th e d is tri ct co ur t fa il ed to gi ve ap pr op ria te weig ht to he r m it ig at io n ev id en ce— al so fai ls

. “ The w ei gh t to be acco rd ed

an y gi ve n § 35 53 (a) fact or is a m at te r co m m it te d to th e so un d di sc ret io n of th e di st ric t

co ur t.” Uni te d St at es v. Cl ay , 4 83 F.3 d 73 9, 74 3 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 0 7 ) ( q u ot at io n m ark s
om it te d)

. The re is no qu es ti on th at th e di st ric t co ur t he ard Ms

. Jo hn so n’s po te nt ia ll y

m it ig at in g ev id en ce reg ard in g he r conti nui ng ed uc at io n, ha rd wor k an d ach ie ve m en ts at he r le gi ti m at e job , m in im al cri m in al hi st or y , an d m os tl y co m pl ia nt co nd uc t du rin g
su pe rv is ed rel eas e. W he n se nt en ci ng Ms

. Jo hn so n, th e co ur t was wit hi n it s au th or it y
4 Case: 12-12911 Date Filed: 12/28/2012 Page: 4 of 7to gi ve le ss weig ht to th es e ch arac te ris ti cs th an it ga ve to th e ne w c riminal co nd uc t

an d “ br each of tru st ” th at le d to he r su pe rv is ed rel eas e be in g rev ok ed

. Th e di st ric t

co ur t di d no t abu se it s di sc ret io n in do in g so . Nor , as Ms

. Jo hn so n su gg es ts , di d th e
co ur t err in refe rri ng to on ly th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s t h a t s u pp or te d th e 24 -m on th

se n t e n c e . “ [N]oth in g . . . req ui res th e di st ric t co ur t to st at e on th e reco rd th at it ha s
ex pl ic it ly co ns id ered each of th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s or to di sc us s each of th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s.” Uni te d St at es v. Sc ot t , 42 6 F.3 d 13 24 , 13 29 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 05 ). Ms

. Jo hn so n’s

se nt en ce i s p ro ced ur al ly reaso na bl e. The se nt en ce is al so su bs ta nt iv el y reas on ab le . F irs t, al th ou gh th e se n t e n c e is 14 m on th s ab ov e th e m ax im um su gg es te d by th e gu id el in es , it is 12 m on th s be lo w th e st at ut or y m ax im

um . Se e 18 U.S.C. § 3 58 3( e)(3 ) (au th or iz in g a pr is on te rm of up to 3 y e a r s f o r cl as s B fel on ie s) . Th e co ur t co ul d ha ve va rie d up ward ev en m or e bu t—

co ns is te nt wit h th e §3553( a) di rect iv e to “ im po se a se nt en ce su ffi ci en t, bu t no t gr eat er th an ne ces sa ry ”—d eci de d to gi ve Ms

. J o hn so n th e lo wes t se nt en ce it fo un d wou ld

“ de te r[] fu t u r e . . . m is co nd uc t.” Seco nd , Ms

. Jo hn so n di d no t co nt es t th at , in vi ol at io n of th e te rm s of he r su pe rv is ed rel eas e, sh e m is le d he r pr ob at io n of fic er ab ou t he r ad dr es s, h e r c o n t a c t wit h a fel on , an d th e st at us of he r m on th ly res ti tu ti on pa y m en ts
. Ms

. Jo hn so n al so di d no t co nt es t t h a t sh e m ov ed wit ho ut in fo rm in g he r pr ob at io n of

fic er, fai le d to pa y res ti tu ti on , an d co m m it te d ne w cri m in al co nd uc t. At

5 Case: 12-12911 Date Filed: 12/28/2012 Page: 5 of 7th e he ari ng , th e di st ric t co ur t le arn ed th at M s. Jo hn so n’s ne w cri m in al co nd uc t

in cl ud ed be in g in po ss es si on of se ve n frau du le nt dr iv er’s li cen se s be ari ng he r pi ct ur e bu t ot he r pe op le ’s na m es an d li cen se nu m be rs . It al so in cl ud ed su sp ic io us m on et ary tra ns act io ns ve ry m

uc h li ke th os e le ad in g to he r or ig in al co nv ic ti on . Bas ed on wha t it he ard , t he co ur t fo un d th at Ms . J oh ns on ha d g ot te n i nv ol ve d wi th “ a se rio us type of cri m in al affa ir.” W ei gh in g th at da m ag in g ev id en ce al on g wit h t h e f av or ab le in fo rm at io n Ms

. Jo hn so n pr es e n t e d, th e co ur t de ci de d th at an ab ov e-g ui de li ne s
se nt en ce was m os t ap pr op ria te
. W e co nc lu de , gi ve n th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces , th at th e 2 4- m on th sen te nc e was reas on ab le

. II. Ms

. Jo hn so n al so arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t vi ol at ed he r du e pr oc es s rig ht s by in te rru pt in g he r co un se l du rin g hi s m it ig at io n arg um en ts an d by fai li ng to co ns id er th os e arg um en ts
. W e di sa gr ee. It is of co ur se tru e th at “ [d ]efe nd an ts in vo lv ed in

rev oc at io n p r o c e e di ng s are en ti tl ed to cert ai n m in im al du e pr oc es s req ui rem en ts ,” Uni te d St at es v. Fra zi er , 26 F.3 d 11 0, 11 4 (1 1 t h Ci r. 19 94 ), am on g th em “ an op po rtu ni ty to m ak e a st at em en t an d pr es en t any in fo rm at io n in m it ig at io n,” Uni te d St at es v. Ca rr ut h , 52 8 F.3 d 84 5, 84 6 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 08 ) (q uo ta ti on m ark s om it te d)

. Bu t th e reco rd rev eal s th at th e di st ric t co ur t ga ve bo th Ms

. Jo hn so n an d he r co un se l am pl e ti m e to pr es en t th ei r cas e. W he n th e co ur t ad dr es se d Ms

. Jo hn so n’s co un se l— who in

6 Case: 12-12911 Date Filed: 12/28/2012 Page: 6 of 7th e na m e of m it ig at io n was at te m pt in g to di sp ro ve th e tru th of th e al le ge d su pe rv is ed rel eas e vi ol at io ns —i t was m erel y tryin g to cl ari fy whe th er Ms

. Jo hn so n ha d ch an ge d he r m in d ab ou t co n t e s t i n g v io la ti on s th at sh e ha d earl ie r ag reed no t to co nt es t. Que st io ni ng co u n s e l t o cl ear up co nf us io n is no t a du e-p ro ces s vi ol at io n. Fu rth erm or e, th e co ur t’s co m m en ts de m on st rat e th at it he ard an d co n s i d e red th e

m it ig at io n a rg um en ts . It jus t fo un d t he m un pe rs ua si ve . Thi s was no t er ro r. III. Ms . Jo hn so n’s 2 4- m on th sen te nc e is affi rm ed

. A F F I R M E D .

7 Case: 12-12911 Date Filed: 12/28/2012 Page: 7 of 7