In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

____________

No. 04-2578

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL CARTER,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

No. 00 CR 166—Rudolph T. Randa, Chief Judge.

____________

ARGUED JANUARY 5, 2005—DECIDED MAY 20, 2005

____________

Before KANNE, ROVNER, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.

ROVNER, Circuit Judge. Michael Carter pled guilty in

federal district court to the fraudulent use of a social security number in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 408(g). Carter admitted in the plea agreement to using a false social security

number to obtain financing on a 2002 Mazda 626 automobile. That was one in a series of such purchases, in which

Carter obtained eight automobiles from eight Milwaukee

area dealerships using false financial information and false

social security numbers. Carter never made payments toward any of those vehicles. Carter was sentenced to a sixmonth term of imprisonment and three years of supervised

release for that offense. In addition, the district court
2 No. 04-2578

ordered restitution in the amount of $52,285.87, or at least

$100 per month during supervised release.

After his release from prison and while on supervised

release, Carter engaged in several violations of the terms of

that release, the most serious of which resulted in a conviction for credit card theft. Other violations included the

failure to pay child support, failure to maintain employment,

and receipt of traffic citations. After conducting a revocation

hearing, the district court revoked Carter’s supervised release and ordered him to serve 8 months’ imprisonment

followed by 2 years of supervised release. In addition to the

standard conditions of supervised release, the district court

further ordered Carter: to participate in a cognitive intervention program; to reimburse the clerk of court for the cost of

appointed counsel at the rate of no less than $50 per month;

to refrain from holding employment or self-employment having

fiduciary duties without first notifying his employer and/or

his supervising probation officer; not to open any new lines

of credit or use existing credit without the prior approval of

his supervising probation officer; to submit all tax returns in

a timely manner; to pay child support and arrearage; and

to participate in a mental health treatment program.

Carter was released from his second term of supervised

release in May 2003. In March 2004, he was indicted in the

district court for misuse of a social security number in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(B). The indictment alleged that

Carter used the name of his father, Stanley Carter, and a

false social security number to purchase an automobile from

a dealership in February 2004. Following that indictment,

Carter’s probation officer petitioned the court for an order

to show cause why Carter’s supervised release should not be

revoked. The petition noted the criminal charge and also

detailed that Carter had failed: to make any payment

toward his court-appointed counsel since his release from

prison; to tender monthly child support payments for almost

a year; to submit monthly restitution payments; and to file,
No. 04-2578 3

or to obtain an extension for, a 2003 tax return. The court

conducted a hearing in June 2004 on that petition. Consistent with his plea agreement in the new federal criminal

case, Carter did not contest the revocation of his supervised

release, and the court proceeded to consideration of the appropriate sentence. The government recommended that the

court sentence Carter at the high end of the 6-to12-month

sentencing guideline range. The court instead sentenced

Carter to 24 months’ imprisonment—the maximum term of

imprisonment permitted by statute—with no additional

supervised release. Carter now appeals that sentence.

Carter acknowledges that the guidelines for sentence revocation are advisory, and that the court has discretion to

impose the sentence that it feels appropriate within the

statutory limits. He nevertheless contends that the court

abused that discretion in imposing the sentence of 24 months,

double the amount recommended by the guidelines.

We will not reverse the district court’s sentence upon revocation of supervised release unless it is “plainly unreasonable.” That standard is not met here.

The Sentencing Commission has promulgated a series of

policy statements for sentencing following a revocation of

supervised release, including a Revocation Table of recommended sentencing ranges tied to the severity of a defendant’s

violations and his criminal history category, § 7B1.4(a) See

U.S.S.G. Ch. 7, Pt. A, §§ 3,4. Those policy statements are to

be given great weight by the sentencing judge, but are nonbinding and the recommended range “informs rather than

cabins the exercise of the judge’s discretion.” United States

v. Salinas, 365 F.3d 582, 588 (7th Cir. 2004). In determining the appropriate sentence upon revocation of supervised

release, the court also must consider the sentencing factors

enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including: (1) the nature

and circumstances of the offense; (2) the defendant’s history

and characteristics; (3) the need of the sentence to deter future
4 No. 04-2578

crime, protect the public, and provide the criminal with necessary services such as education and medical treatment;

(4) Sentencing Commission recommendations regarding

sentencing range; (5) Sentencing Commission policy; and (6)

sentence consistency for similar violations. 18 U.S.C.

§ 3583. Although the court need not make factual findings

on the record for each factor, the record should reveal that

the court gave consideration to those factors. Salinas, 365

F.3d at 589; United States v. Huusko, 275 F.3d 600, 603

(7th Cir. 2001). 

The record provides ample evidence that the district court

in this case considered those factors. In fact, the court expressly noted that it must consider those factors, discussing

at length the nature of the offense, character of the defendant,

and the need to protect the community and meet the needs

of Carter as well.

The court recognized that the offense and prior conduct

involved paper crimes, but concluded that the serial nature

of the conduct while on supervised release rendered the

conduct more serious. The court noted that the pattern

indicated an inability or unwillingness to correct previous

mistakes. Regarding Carter’s character, the court pointed

to his good upbringing, fine education, and family support

as weighing positively. The court then turned to the needs

of the community, determining that a harsher sentence was

necessary given the pattern of conduct and the minimal

efforts to comply with other terms of supervised release including child support and restitution. The court concluded

that a sentence of 24 months’ imprisonment and no supervised release was appropriate. Although the court recognized

that its sentence exceeded the Guidelines’ recommendation,

it also noted that it was not bound by that recommendation

if it believed, as it did, that there were circumstances in

light of the policy statements that demanded deviation. The

court further stated that the longer sentence was consistent

with the sentences the court had given in similar cases.
No. 04-2578 5

Thus, the record reflects careful consideration of the appropriate factors by the district court. The court concluded

that the pattern of serial conduct and of non-compliance

with the requirements of supervised release required imprisonment of a longer term. There is nothing “plainly unreasonable” about that conclusion given the conduct by Carter. See

Salinas, 365 F.3d at 589 (upholding a district court’s

imposition of a 24-month sentence, well above the Guidelines

recommendation of 3 to 9 months, where Salinas violated

the conditions of supervised release on multiple occasions

notwithstanding increasingly onerous modifications of the

terms of release in an effort to modify his behavior); United

States v. Harvey, 232 F.3d 585 (7th Cir. 2000) (affirming

district court’s imposition of a 24-month sentence where the

Guideline range was 4 to 10 months, given the repeated and

serious nature of the violations of supervised release).

Accordingly, the decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.

A true Copy:

Teste: 

 ________________________________

Clerk of the United States Court of

Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 

USCA-02-C-0072—5-20-05