FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT AUGUST 11, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [D O N OT P UBL ISH] IN TH E U NITE D S TAT ES C OUR T OF AP PE ALS F OR TH E E LE V EN TH C IR C U IT

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1590 0 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 01-00259 -CR- E UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee ve rs us TERRY JOSEPH SM ITH, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court f o r th e N o rt h e rn D i s t r i c to f

A l ab a ma

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (A ug us t 11, 200 5) Be fo re CA RN E S, BA RKE T T and M A RC U S, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: T er ry Jos ep h S m ithappe al s hi s se nte nc e of 24 m onths’ im

pr iso nm en t f

or violatin g the condit ions o f his supervised release. O n appeal, S m ith contend s that2

the dis tr ic t c ourt a

buse d it s di sc re tio n w he n it im pose d a24- m onth se nte nc e in excess of the range establish ed in section 7B1.4 of the sentencing g uidelin es be ca use the c ourt di sr eg ar de d th e Ch ap te r 7 po lic y state m en ts p ri or

to im posi ng se nte nc e. S m itha sse rt s th at a t the r ev oc at ionhe ar ing , the te sti m ony that he pr es en te d th at

he m ai nta ine d st ea dy

e m plo ym en t and s uppo rt ed

his f am ily supp orted “ the poss ibilityof an alter native m ethod for rehabilitation rather than inc ar ce ratio n. ” S m ithc ont en ds tha t de spi te thi s te sti m ony , and the f ac t tha t he w as not c harg ed w ithany ne wof fe nse s, the dis tr ic t c ourt di sr eg ar de d vi ab le opt ion s to a ddr es s hi s dr

ug p ro ble m

and s en te nc ed

him to the statut or

y m ax im um of 24-m onth s’ im

prisonm ent. F inally , S m ith asserts that he sho uld have been se nte nc ed w ith in the r ec om

m en de d gu ide lin e se nte nc ing r an ge of 5 t o 11 m onths’ in carc erat io n i ns te adof t he st atut ory m ax im um . T y pic al ly , w e re vie wadis tr ic t c ourt’ s de ci sio n to e xc ee d th e se nte nc ing range in Chapter 7 of the S entencing Guidelines for an abuse of discretion. U nited St at es v. Br ow n, 224 F . 3d 1 237, 123 9 ( 11th C ir . 200 0) . H ow ev er , w he n a de fe ndant f

ai ls t o st at e cl earl y

the gr ound s f

or an ob j ec tio n, his obj ec tio n is w ai ve d onappe al and r ev ie w ed f or pla in e rr or . U nit ed

S ta te s v. Z inn , 321 F . 3d 1084 , 108 7 ( 11th C ir . 200 3) . P la in e rr or e xis ts whe n: ( 1) an e rr or e xis ts tha t, ( 2) is pla in, ( 3) se ri ousl y

a ff ec ts a de fe ndant’ s su

bst an tia l r igh ts, and ( 4) “ se ri ousl y3

affe ct[s] the fairness, integrity , or publ ic reputation of judicial procee ding s.” U nit ed S ta te s v. A ce ve do, 285 F . 3d 1 010, 101 2 ( 11th C ir . 200 2) . T he pla in e rr or standard is ap pli ca

ble he re be ca

use , a lth oughS m ithur ge d th e dis tr ic t c ourt t o co nsi de r his c ir cum stanc es and c onsi de r ana lte rn at ive to inc ar ce ratio n, he did not m ak e th e sp eci fic cla im s t ha t h e cu rren tl y rai se s o n app eal . Ch ap te r 7 of

the S en te nc ing G uid el ine s pr ovi de s im pr iso nm en t r an ge s th at

a se nte nc ing c ourt m ay

f oll oww he n r ev oki ng s upe rv ise d r el ea se . U . S. S. G . Ch . 7, Pt. A. , intro. (2003). Asentencing court m ust cons ider the policy

statem ents und er Ch ap te r 7 w he n im

posi ng s en te nc e uponthe r ev oc at ionof pr obatio n, but

is not b o u n db y t h em be ca u s e t h ey ar e mer el y ad v i s o ry. B ro wn , 2 2 4 F. 3 dat1 2 4 2 . We ha ve r ep eate dly

he ld tha t dr

ug r eh ab ili ta tio n pr ogr am s m ay be c onsi de re d in determ ining the length of a sentence im posed up on revocation of sup ervised re le as e. S ee Br ow n, 224 F . 3d at 12 43 ( hol din g th at the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a buse its dis cr et ionin co nsi de ri ng the de fe ndant’ s ne ed f or dr ug a buse tr eatm en t i n im posin g a 24-m onth prison senten ce where the m axim um of the Chapter 7 re co m m en de d r an ge w as 11 m onths) ; U nit ed S ta te s v. W igg ins , 220 F . 3d 1 248, 1249 ( 11th C ir . 200 0) ( co nc lud ing that the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a buse it s dis cr et ionin co nsi de ri ng the a va ila bil ity of dr ug a buse tr eatm en t i n im

posi ng a 24- m onth sentence w here the Chapter 7 recom m ended range wa s 3 to 9 m onth s);4

U nit ed S ta te s v. A gui llard , 217 F . 3d 1 319, 132 1 ( 11th C ir . 200 0) ( upho ldi ng a 24- m onth se nte nc e im

pose d so le ly

f or the pur pose of e nsur ing that the de fe ndant undergo com

prehensive drug abus e re habilitatio n where the Chapter 7 re co m m en de d r an ge w as 3 t o 9 m onths) . U nde r U . S. S. G . § 7B 1. 4( a) , the r an ge of i m p ri s o n m en tap p l i cab l e up o n re v o ca t i o n i s d et er m i n ed b y p l o t t i n g a d ef en d an t ’s grade of violation agains t his crim inal histo ry category at the tim e of his original se nte nc e to a

te rm of sup er vis ion . U nit ed

S ta te s v. Mi lano, 32 F . 3d 1 499, 150 1 (11th Cir. 1994) superseded on ot her grounds b y statute as rec ogni zed in United States v. Cook, 291 F.3d 1297 , 1300 n.3 (11th Cir. 2002). He re, it is und isput ed that the gui de lin e range appl ic ab le to Sm ith ’ s vi olatio ns w as 5 t o 11 m onths’ im prisonm ent. S ee U .S .S .G . § 7B1. 4(a) ( 2003 ). Under § 3583(g), the sentencing court m ust revoke sup ervised relea se if a de fe ndant p oss es se d ac ontro lle d su bst an ce or

r ef use d to c om

ply w ithdr ug t es tin g im pose d a s ac ondi tio n of

his r el ea se . 18 U . S. C. § 35 83( g) . I n th is s itu at ion , the statut e ins tr

uc ts a c ourt t o im

pose ase nte nc e not

e xc ee din g th e m ax im

um te rm of im prisonm ent authorized und er subsection (e)(3). 18 U. S. C. § 358 3. Under subs ec tio n ( e) (3 ), S m ithm ay not se rv e m or e than tw o y ears ’ im pr iso nm en t. 18 U.S.C. § 3 58 3( e)(3 ).5

In this case, the district court m ade clear on the record that it had considered the appl ic ab le r ec om

m en de d se nte nc e range und er § 7B 1. 4, but

c hose to ap ply

the statut or y m ax im um in or de r to a ddr es s S m ith ’ s su bst an ce abuse pr obl em . S m ith doe s no t di sput e the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de te rm inatio n th at he ( a) f ai le d to c om

ple te the drug tre at m en t p ro gr am

off eredby the USPO, an d (b ) ha d asev ere d ru g p ro bl em . It w as w ith in the c ourt’ s auth or ity to co nsi de r the gui de lin e range a s a dvi sor y and to c onsi de r Sm ith ’ s ne ed

f or r eh ab ili ta tio n w he n de te rm ini ng h is t er m of incarce ration. S ee Br own, 224 F.3d at 1240 , 1242. A ccordingly , the district court did no t com

m it plain error when it sentenced Sm ith to th e tw o-y ear m axim um term of incarce ration authorized und er the statute. AFFIRMED.