FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT O c t obe r 13, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ 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. 05- 15783 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 98 -000 07 -C R -W D O -7 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 F R A N K W E S L E Y , 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 M id d le D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( O c t ob e r 13, 2006) B efo re B IR C H , D U B IN A an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: F ra nk W es l eyappeal s hi s s ent ence of 36 m on ths of i m pri sonm enti m po se d f o l l o w i n g r e v o c a t i o n o f

h i s s u p e rv i s e d r e l e a s e . We A F F I R M.2 I . B AC KG RO UN D I n S e p te m b e r2 0 0 0 , W e s le y p le d g u ilty to s e v e r a l c o u n ts o f p o s s e s s io n w ith i nt entt o d i stri bu t e c ocai ne, i n v i ol at i on of 21 U . S . C . § 8 41 (a )( 1). H e w as s e nt e nc e d t o a t e rm of

110 m onths of

i m pr i s onm e ntt o be f

ol l ow e d by f

i ve y e a r s of s u p e rv is e d r e le a s e . B e c a u s e o f W e s le y 's s u b s ta n tia l a s s is ta n c e to th e g o v e rn m e n t, the s e nt e nc i ng j udge s ubs e que nt l y r e duc e d hi s s e nt e nc e t o 85 m onths of i m p ri so n m en t . In A u g u st2 0 0 5 , w h i l e W esl ey w as serv i n g h i s su p erv i sed -rel ease t e rm , hi s pr oba t i on of

f i c e rf i l e d a pe t i t i on a l l e gi ng tha tW e s l e y ha d t e s t e d pos i t i ve f o rm a r iju a n a o n f

iv e o c c a s io n s , in v io la tio n o f th e te rm s o f

h is s u p e rv is e d r e le a s e . T h e p r o b a tio n o f

f ic e rr e c o m m e n d e d th a t W e s le y ’s s u p e rv is e d r e le a s e b e r e v o k e d . T he di s tr i c tj udge i s s ue d a s um m ons or de r i ng W e s l e y t o appe a rt o a ns w e rthe a l l e ga t i ons s e tf

or th i n the pe t i t i on. A thi s he a r i ng, W e s l e y a dm i tt e d the a l l e ga t i ons a nd e xpl a i ne d tha the b e lie v e d th a t h e w a s a d d ic te d to m a r iju a n aa n d w a n te d to r e c e iv e tr e a tm e n t f o rh is addi ct i on . H e f

urther r equest ed thathe no tbe i m pri soned. W es l ey ’ s m other t e s t i f i e d a s t o hi s good c ha r a c t e ra nd r e por t e d tha the ha d be e n a tt e ndi ng adrug r e habi l i t a t i on tr e a tm e ntpr ogr a m dur i ng hi s t i m e on s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e buttha the st i l l had a prob l em w i th m ar i j uana use. A ft erhear i ng fr om W es l eyand h i s m other a nd s t a t i ng tha the ha d c ons i de r e d the pol i c y s t a t e m e nt s i n the S e nt e nc i ngAlthough the repo rt c alculating theSentenc ingGuide lin e s rang eha s n ot b e en inc lude d in 1 there c ord on a

pp e al, bo th Wes ley and the g ov ern ment agre e that the Guide lin e s ra ng e wa s f iveto eleven months of imprisonment. Appellant's B r. at 4; Appe llee' s Br . at 3. In a handwritten letter to the district court, filed m ore than two months after therevoc ation 2 he aring , We sley

a sserte d s e veral c laimsof ine ff e c tiv ea ssi sta

nc eof c ouns e l. R 1- 17 5. Ev en if thi s letter were construed to be a brief in support of a valid appe al, the inef

fec tive assistanceof counse l claims arenot ripe for

review, beca

use they were not resolved by the court below. Fur thermore , the arguments made in counse l’s brief must def i n e the scopeof the a

ppeal, sincethat counsel ha s not been discharg ed. 3 G u id e lin e s , th e d is tr ic t ju d g e d e te rm in e d th a t W e s le y h a d v io la te d th e te rm s o f h is s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e a nd s e nt e nc e d hi m t o 36 m onths of i m pr i s onm e nt . R 2 a t7. T he di s tr i c tj udge not e d tha t18 U . S . C . § 3583( g) r e qui r e d m a nda t ory r e voc a t i on of W es l ey ' s s up ervi se d rel ea se and con cl ud ed thatan except i on t o thatprov i si on w as n o tw arran t ed b ecau se o f W esl ey’ s “ o n g o i n g u se o f m ari j u an a, d esp i t e [h i s] part i ci pat i on i n a subst ance abuse tre atm entprog ra m . ” I d. at7-8. T he j ud ge no t ed thatthi s s ent ence w as ou t si de of the S ent enci ng G ui del i nes r ange of fi ve t o el even m onths of

i m pr i s onm e nt , buthe s t a t e d tha tthe G ui de l i ne s r a nge w oul d be 1

“ i nadequ at e” for W es l eygi ven h i s r epea t ed m ar i j uana use w hi l e on sup ervi se d r e l e a s e . I d. a t7. T he j udge f ur the rr e c om m e nde d tha tW e s l e y be pl a c e d i n a 500- hourr e s i de nt i a l s ubs t a nc e abus e tr e a tm e ntpr ogr a m w hi l e i n the c us t ody of the B ur e a u of

P r i s ons ( “ B O P ” ) . I d. a t8. 2 O n appe a l , W e s l e y ' s c ouns e l a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tj udge pl a i nl y e rr e d by se nt enci ng W es l eyt o the st atut ory m axi m um of 36 m on ths of i m pri sonm entra ther4

tha n w i thi n the S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s r a nge of f i ve t o e l e ve n m onths of i m pr i s onm e nt . H e c ont e nds tha tthe j udge ’ s purpos e f ors e nt e nc i ng W e s l e y t o 36 m onths of

i m pr i s onm e ntw a s t o f

a c i l i t a t e hi s pl a c e m e nti n the B O P ’ s i nt e ns i ve 500- hourdrug r e habi l i t a t i on pr ogr a m , a l though he ha s now r e c e i ve d not i c e tha the w i l l no tbe pl ac ed i n thatprog ra m . W es l eyar gu es thatthe se nt ence i m po se d defe at s, ra ther than faci l i t at es , the di stri ctj ud ge’ s i nt ent i on . H e f urther a ss ert s that th e ju d g e f

a ile d to c o n s id e ra n y a lte rn a tiv e to th e m a x im u m s e n te n c e s p e c if ic a lly by i gnor i ng w he the rr e s i de nt i a l , i npa t i e nttr e a tm e nt , c om bi ne d w i th s om e t e rm of i nc a r c e r a t i on, w oul d be m or e appr opr i a t e . W e s l e y ' s c ouns e l a r gue s tha tthe s e n t e n c i n g j u d g e s h o u l d h a v e p r o v i d e d f o ra d e c r e a s e i n h i s s e n t e n c e i f th e B OP d id n o t p la c e h im in th e 5 0 0 - h o u rp r o g r a m , a s o th e rs e n te n c in g ju d g e s h a v e d o n e in s im ila rs itu a tio n s . I I . DI S CUS S I ON S i nc e W e s l e y f

a i l e d t o obj e c ti n di s tr i c tc our ton the gr ounds he a s s e r t s on appe a l , w e r e vi e w the r e voc a t i on a nd s e nt e nc e f orpl a i n e rr or . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G r e s ha m , 325 F . 3d 1262, 1265 ( 11th C i r . 2003) . U nde rthe pl a i n e rr ors t a nda r d, W e s le y “m u s t s h o w th a t: ( 1 ) a n e rr o ro c c u rr e d ; ( 2 ) th e e rr o rw a s p la in ; ( 3 ) it a f f e c t e d hi s s ubs t a nt i a l r i ght s ; a nd ( 4) i ts e r i ous l y a f f e c t e d the f

a i rne s s of

the j ud i ci al proceedi ng s. ” I d. T he t es tfor s ho w i ng thatthe error a ff ec t ed subst ant i al5

r i ght s , a nd thus “ ' the out c om e of the di s tr i c tc our tpr oc e e di ngs , ' ” i s the f orm ul a t i on o f a r e a s o n ab le p r o b ab ility o f a d if f e r e n t r e s u lt, w h ic h m e a n s a p r o b ab ility

“ ' suff i ci entt o u nd erm i ne confi dence i n the ou t com e. ' ” U ni t ed S t at es v. R od ri gu ez , 398 F . 3d 1291, 1299 ( 11th C i r . ) ( c i t a t i ons om i tt e d) , c e r t . de ni e d, __ U . S . __, 125 S . C t . 29 35 (200 5). A n err or ca nn otbe pl ai n u nl es s the error i s “ ' cl ea r und er c urr e ntl a w . ' ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. A gui l l a r d, 217 F . 3d 1319, 1321 ( 11th C i r . 2000) (percuri am ) ( ci t at i on om i tt ed). W here nei ther the S up re m e C ou rtno r our court ha s r e s ol ve d a n i s s ue , tha ti s s ue c a nnotbe the s ubj e c tof pl a i n e rr or . I d. W he n c onf

r ont e d w i th a vi ol a t i on of s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e , the s e nt e nc i ng j udge m ay , af t erconsi deri ng the fa ct ors e nu m er at ed i n 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) , am on g o ther th in g s , “r e v o k e a te rm o f s u p e rv is e d r e le a s e , a n d r e q u ir e th e d e f e n d a n t to s e rv e in pr i s on a l l orpa r tof

the t e rm of

s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e a uthor i z e d by s t a tut e f orthe o f f e n s e th a t r e s u lte d in s u c h te rm o f s u p e rv is e d r e le a s e .” 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 3 ( e ) ( 3 ) . A m ong the f

a c t or s l i s t e d i n § 3553( a ) a r e “ the hi s t ory a nd c ha r a c t e r i s t i c s of the de f e nda nt , ” “ the ne e d . . . t o pr om ot e r e s pe c tf orthe l a w , ” “ the ne e d . . . t o pr ovi de

. . . c orr e c t i ona l tr e a tm e nt , ” a nd “ a ny pe r t i ne ntpol i c y s t a t e m e nt. . . i s s ue d by the S e n te n c in g C o m m is s io n .” 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) . M o r e o v e r , w e h a v e h e ld th a t a di stri ctj ud ge i s perm i tt ed t o con si der r ehabi l i t at i ve go al s i n i ss ui ng a s ent ence w hen i m po si ng i m pri sonm entaf t erre vo ca t i on of supervi se d rel ea se . U ni t ed S t at es6

v. B row n, 22 4 F . 3d 12 37 , 12 40 (11th C i r. 20 00 ). T he G ui del i nes f

or se nt enci ng fol l ow i ng re vo ca t i on of supervi se d rel ea se ar e m ea ntt o serve as po l i cyst at em ent s onl y a nd w er e non -bi nd i ng , even before U ni t ed S t a t e s v. B ooke r , 543 U . S . 220, 125 S . C t . 738 ( 2005) . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. W hi t e , 416 F . 3d 1313, 1318 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( pe rc ur i a m ) . T he r e f or e , a f t e rc ons i de r i ng the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors, a s ent enci ng j ud ge has di sc re t i on t o d evi at e f rom the G ui del i nes ra n g e u p to th e s tatu to ry m ax im u m term fo r th e o ff en d er ’s v io lati o n . Id . W es ley’s o ri g i n al cri m e o f d i stri b u t i n g fi fty g ram s o r m o re o f co cai n e b ase i s a C l ass A f e l ony a nd r e s ul t s i n a s t a tut ory m a xi m um s e nt e nc e of l i f e i m pr i s onm e nt . 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 9(a) (1). O ne w ho i s und ersupervi se d rel ea se for the com m i ss i on of a C l a s s A f e l ony m a y be i m pr i s one d f ora m a xi m um t e rm of

f i ve y e a r s upon re v o ca ti o n o f s u p er v ised re leas e. 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 3 (e )( 3 ). A cc o rd in g ly, W es ley’s se nt ence of 36 m on ths of i m pri sonm entw as w i thi n the st atut ori l y autho ri ze d r a n g e . T he di stri ctj ud ge consi dere d t es t i m on y of both W es l eyand h i s m other re gardi ng W es l ey ’ s hi st ory a nd char ac t er i st i cs . T he j ud ge further s t at ed that W es l ey ' s s ent ence w as i m po se d aft erconsul t i ng the S ent enci ng G ui del i nes pol i cy s t a t e m e nt s ; he a ddi t i ona l l y c ons i de r e d W e s l e y ’ s ne e d f orr e habi l i t a t i ve drug tr e a tm e n t a n d r e c o m m e n d e d th a t h e b e e n r o lle d in a n in te n s iv e 5 0 0 - h o u rp r o g r a m .7

T he j ud ge’ s s t at em ent s s ho w hi s c on si dera t i on of § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors, such as W e s le y ’s h is to ry a n d c h a r a c te r is tic s , th e n e e d to p r o v id e th e d e f e n d a n t w ith c orr e c t i ve tr e a tm e nt , a nd the ne e d t o c om pl y w i th the pol i c y s t a t e m e nt s of the S e nt e nc i ng C om m i s s i on. W e s le y 's c o u n s e l a r g u e s th a t th e s e n te n c e w a s p la in e rr o rb e c a u s e its p u rp o s e o f

p r o v id in g r e h ab ilita tio n h a s b e e n f ru s tr a te d b y h is in ab ility to e n r o ll in the B O P ’ s 500- houri nt e ns i ve tr e a tm e ntpr ogr a m . H e not e s tha tothe rs e nt e nc i ng ju d g e s h a v e c o n d itio n e d a lo n g e rs e n te n c e u p o n th e d e f e n d a n t’s ab ility to e n r o ll in i nt e ns i ve tr e a tm e nt . F ore xa m pl e , W e s l e y c i t e s B r ow n, w he r e w e a f f i rm e d the re as on abl enes s of ase nt ence i m po se d w i th such con di t i on s. B row n, ho w ever , do es nots t a nd f

orthe pr opos i t i on tha ta di s tr i c tj udge m us tc ondi t i on as e nt e nc e on a defe nd ant ’ s abi l i ty t o enrol l i n a tre atm entprog ra m . Inst ea d, B row n rec og ni ze d tha t , w he n s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e i s r e voke d unde rthe m a nda t ory pr ovi s i ons of § 3583( g) , a di s tr i c tj udge ne e d notc ons i de r§ 3553( a ) f a c t or s s uc h a s the ne e d f or c orr e c t i ve tr e a tm e nt . B r ow n, 224 F . 3d a t1241. C ons e que nt l y , the r e i s no c l e a ror bi ndi ng pr e c e de ntr e qui r i ng a s e nt e nc e t o be r e duc e d i f a de s i r e d tr e a tm e nt p ro g ram i s fo u n d t o b e u n av ai l ab l e aft er th e sen t en ce h as b een i m p o sed . B ecau se a n e rr o ris n o t “p la in e rr o r ” u n le s s it is “'cle a ru n d e rc u rr e n t la w ,'” th e f a ilu r e to m a ke W e s l e y ’ s s e nt e nc e c ondi t i ona l upon the a va i l abi l i ty of the r e habi l i t a t i on8

prog ra m w as no tpl ai nl y e rr on eous. A gu i l l ar d, 21 7 F . 3d at13 21 (c i t at i on om i tt ed). M oreover, there i s no cl ea r pre ce dentre qu i ri ng a c ou rtt o con si der l ocal in p a tie n t tr e a tm e n t a s a n a lte rn a tiv e to im p r is o n m e n t. T h e d is tr ic t ju d g e lis te n e d to W es l ey ’ s t es t i m on y r egar di ng hi s s trugg l e w i th m ar i j uana addi ct i on and n ot ed that a n e xc e pt i on t o the m a nda t ory r e voc a t i on pr ovi s i ons w a s notw a rr a nt e d be c a us e of h is c o n tin u e d m a r iju a n a u s e , d e s p ite h is p a r tic ip a tio n in a d ru g tr e a tm e n t p r o g r a m . T here fore , the j ud ge’ s r ef usal t o p rovi de for l ocal i np at i enttre atm entas an al t ern at i v e t o i n carcerati o n w as n o tp l ai n l y erro n eo u s. I I I . CONCL US I ON W e s l e y ha s appe a l e d hi s 36- m onth s e nt e nc e i m pos e d f ol l ow i ng r e voc a t i on of hi s s up ervi se d rel ea se . B ec ause W es l ey ’ s s ent ence w as w i thi n the st atut ory m a x im u m te rm a n d w a s im p o s e d a f te rc o n s id e r a tio n o f

th e f a c to r s s e t f

o r th in § 3 55 3(a) , i tw as no tpl ai nl y e rr on eous. A cc ordi ng l y, hi s 36-m on th sent ence i m p o sed p u rsu an tt o rev o cat i o n o f h i s su p erv i sed rel ease i s AF F I RME D.