FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT OCT 2, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 08- 1245 7 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 04-00170 -CR- 4 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us JOHN WE SLEY MOBLEY, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (O ct ob er 2, 200 8) Be fo re T JO FL A T , BL A CK a nd M A RC U S, Ci rc uit

Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: JohnW es le y Mo bley

appe al s f

ro m his 24- m onth se nte nc e fo r vio la tin g
m an da tor y , spe ci al , a nd s tandard

c ondi tio ns o f his sup er

vis ed r el eas e. O n a

ppe al ,These f actor s include: (1) the nature and cir cumstance s of the off ense a nd the history

and 1 char acte ristics of the defe ndant; (2) the need for the sentenc e imposed to affor d adequate deter renc e; (3) the ne ed to protec t the p ublic; (4) the ne ed to provide the defe ndant with educational or vocational tra ining or

medi ca l car e; (5) the SentencingGuidelines ra ng e; (6) the pertinent policy state me nts of

the Se nte nc ingCommis sio n; ( 7) the n e e d to avo id u nw ante d s e nte nc ingdis pa ri tie s; and (8) the nee d to provide re stitut ion to victims . 18 U.S.C. § 3 5 5 3 (a) (1), ( a)( 2)(B )-( D), a nd (a) (4)- (7). 2 Mobley argues that: (1) his sentence w as unreasonable because i t wa s m ore than twice the m axim

um guidelin es range of 13 m onth s’ im prisonm ent, and the dis trict
co urt f ai le d to c onsi de r tha t he sti pul at ed to the vio la tio ns or

that he pr es en te d c er

ta in
m itigatin g evidence at sentencing; and (2) the violatio ns did not require m andatory
re voc at ionof

sup ervi se d r el ea se a nd h e part ia lly c om ple te d th e co ndi tio ns o f
s up e rv i s e dr e l e a s e . A f

t e r t h o r o u g h r e v i e w , w e a f

f i rm. W e re vie wthe se nte nc e im pose d upon the r ev oc at ionof sup er vis ed r el ea se f or reasonableness. U nited States v. S we eting, 437 F.3d 1105 , 110 6-07 (11th Cir. 2006 ).

“ [R]eas o n ab l e n e s s ” r e v i e w“ mer e l y a s k s wh e t h e r t h e t r i a l c o u rt ab us ed

it s d is cret io n.” United States v. Pugh, 5 15 F. 3d 1179 , 118 9 (11th Cir. 2008 ) (quoting Rita v. United St at es , 12 7 S . Ct. 2 45 6, 2 46 5 (2 00 7) ). The district court m ay

revoke a ter

m of supervised release and i m pose a
se nte nc e of

im pr iso nm en t f

or the vio la tio n a ft er

c onsi de ri ng factor s se t f orth i n 18 U. S. C. § 3553 (a)( 1), (a)( 2)(B) -(D ), and (a)( 4)-(7), if it “ finds by a preponderance 1 of th e ev ide nc e tha t the de fe ndant v iol at ed ac ondi tio n of

sup er vis ed r el ea se . ” 183

U
. S. C. § 35 83( e) (3 ). Upon suc h af ind ing , the dis tr ic t c ourt m ay “ requ ir e the defendant to serve in prison all or part of the term o f s u p er v i sed release authorized by statut e fo r the of

fe nse that r es ult ed

in suc h te rm of su pe rv is ed r el ea se . ” I d. Ch ap t er Seven of the Sentencing Guidelines provides guidance on the length of a sentence to be im

posed af ter revocation of supervised release. U nited States v. S ilva, 443 F.3d 795 , 799 (11th Cir. 2006). “ [T ] he policy statem ents of Chapter [S even] are
m er el y a dvi sor y a nd n ot b ind ing , ” but

“ the dis tr ic t c ourt i s r equir ed to co nsi de r the pol ic y state m en ts. ” I d. “ Whe n e xc ee din g th e re co m m en de d r an ge , the co ur t m ust
nor m al ly ind ic at e tha t i t c onsi de re d th e Ch ap te r [S ev en ] pol ic y state m en ts. ” I d. Inr ev ie w ing se nte nc es f

or r ea sona ble ne ss, w e pe rf

orm tw o st ep s. P ugh, 515 F. 3d a t 11 90. Fi rs t, w e m ust “ ‘ en sur e tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt c om m itt ed no s ign if ic an t pr oc ed ur al e rr or , suc h a s f

ai lin g t o c al cu la te ( or

im pr ope rl y c al cu la tin g) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as m andatory , f ailin g t o co nsider the § 3553 (a ) fa ct or s, se le ct ing a se nt ence ba se d onc le ar ly e rr one ous fa ct s, or

f ai lin g to ad equa te ly

e xpl ai n th e ch ose n se nte nc e -- inc lud ing a n e xpl an at ion fo r an y de via tio n fr om the G uid el ine s range . ’ ” Id
. (quot ing G al l v. U nit ed S ta te s, 128 S
. Ct
. 586 , 597 (2 007) ). I f w e co nc lud e tha t the dis tri ct co urt di d no t pr oc ed ur al ly e rr , w e m

ust consider the “ ‘ subs tantive reasonableness o f t he sentence im posed, under an ab use -o f- dis cr et ionstandard , ’ ” ba se d onthe “ ‘ tot al ity of the c ir cu m stanc es . ’ ” I d.4

(quot ing G al l, 128 S
. Ct
. at 597)
. “ T he party w ho c ha lle nge s th e se nte nc e be ar s th e bur de n of

e sta bli shi ng that th e se nt ence is unr ea sona ble
. . . . ” U nit ed

S ta te s v. Thom as, 446 F. 3d 13 48, 1351 (11t h Cir. 2006 ) (internal quotation om itted). Mobley has not sh own that his sentence was unreasonable. A s for procedural
reas on a b l e n e s s, t he reco rdsh ows th atth e d is tri ctco ur t co ns id ered th e U.S.S.G. Chapter Se ven poli cy

statem ents and gu id el i n es range, the relevant fa ctors under § 35 53( a) , and th e p art ie s’ arg um en ts in de te rm in in g t he sen te nc e, sp eci fic al ly findin g tha t the m iti ga tin g e vid en ce M obl ey pr of fe re d c ar ri ed m ar gin al va lue
. Whil e the dis tr ic t c ourt did no t co ns ide r spe ci fi ca lly e ac h § 3 553( a) f

ac tor in de te rm ini ng the
se nte nc e, it is n ot r equir ed to do s o. S ee U nit ed

S ta te s v. T al le y , 431 F
. 3d 7 84, 786 (11th Cir. 2005). Beca

use a leng thy

discussi on is no t required to establish procedural
re as ona ble ne ss, an d as her e, the dis tr ic t cour t “ se t f orth e noug h to sa tis fy

the appe llate
co urt t ha t [it ] ha s c onsi de re d th e part ie s’ a rg um en ts and h as ar ea sone d ba sis f or exercising [its] own legal decisionm aking auth ority ,” Mobley ’ s sentence wa s pr oc edur al ly reaso na bl e. See R it a, 12 7 S .Ct. at 24 68
. As f or substant ive reasonableness, the di strict court found th at Mobley had an extensive crim inal hi st or

y w i th pr e vi ou s pr ob at i on

v iolation s, intentionallydisob ey ed the instructio ns of the probatio n officer (specific ally

advising the probation officer tha t he w oul d no t f

oll owhis ins tr

uc tio ns) , a nd c om

m itt ed m ult ipl e vio la tio ns o f the5

co ndi tio ns o f his sup er

vis ed r el ea s e . M o r e o v e r , M o b l e y ’ s m iti ga tin g e vid en ce did not show that Mobley acted un intentio nally in violatin g the conditi ons of h is sup ervised
re le as e or that he li ke ly

w oul d s ub m it to the c ourt’ s auth or ity in the f uture . A nd al tho ugh Mob le y

did not c om m it a cr im ina l off

en se in viol at ing the co ndi tio ns of his
s up e rv i s e dr e l e a s e , s t i p u l a t e dt o t h e v i o l a t i o n s , a n dp a rt i a l l y c o mp l i e dw i t h t h e t e rms of his release , h e n e ve r

the l ess deliberately

com m itted m ultip le violation s and rebuked the dis tr ic t co urt’ s pr ior ins tr uc tio ns to subm it to the au tho ri ty of the law . O n this record, we cannot say that the district court abused it s discretion in con cluding that the int en tio na l natur e of

Mo ble y ’ s vi ola tio ns, c oupl ed w ithhis his tor

y of vio la tin g probation and the m

ultitu de of his violatio ns, j ustified a harsher sentence -- m ore than tw ic e the gui de lin es range -- in ligh t of the § 3553( a) fa ct or s, na m el y the na tur e an d circum st an ce s of the violation s, Mobley ’ s histo ry and charac teristics, and the need to d et er f uture cri m in al c ondu ct
. S ee 18 U
. S. C. §§ 3 553( a) , 358 3( e) ; G al l, 128 S. Ct
. a t 59 7 ( hol din g th at

a m aj or vari an ce “ shou ld be supp orte d by a m or e sig nif ic an t j u s t i f i c a t i o n t h a n ami n o r

o n e ” )
. A c c o r d i n g l y, w e a f f i rm. AFFIRMED.