[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 13-11691

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 0:09-cr-60178-ASG-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ERNESTO HERRADA CORDOVA,

a.k.a. Ernesto Herrada,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(October 17, 2013)

Before TJOFLAT, DUBINA and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Case: 13-11691 Date Filed: 10/17/2013 Page: 1 of 4 
2

Appellant Ernesto Herrada Cordova appeals his sentence imposed by the 

district court, following the revocation of his supervised release based on three 

Florida state convictions. At sentencing, Cordova requested that the district court 

mitigate his sentence on the basis that he had served 17.5 months in state custody 

for his offenses underlying his violations of supervised release. The district court 

revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to ten months’ imprisonment.

On appeal, Cordova argues that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable 

because the court failed to adequately explain the chosen sentence. He contends 

that the court did not offer an explanation for why it intended to sentence him at 

the high end of his guideline range. Cordova also argues that his sentence is

substantively unreasonable because the district court failed to account for the 

sentences that he served for his underlying state offenses.

We review a sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release for 

reasonableness. United States v. Velasquez Velasquez, 524 F.3d 1248, 1252 (11th 

Cir. 2008). The sentence is primarily intended to punish the defendant’s breach of 

his supervised release and is to be imposed consecutive to any sentence received 

for the substantive offense underlying the violation. U.S.S.G. Ch. 7, Pt.A, 

comment. (3(b)).

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3), a district court may revoke a term of 

supervised release based upon a preponderance of the evidence showing that a 

Case: 13-11691 Date Filed: 10/17/2013 Page: 2 of 4 
3

defendant has violated a condition of supervised release and impose a term of 

imprisonment after considering certain factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 

United States v. Sweeting, 437 F.3d 1105, 1107 (11th Cir. 2006). The § 3553(a) 

factors that a court must consider in revoking supervised release include: (1) the 

nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the 

defendant; (2) the need for the sentence imposed to afford adequate deterrence to 

criminal conduct, protect the public from further crimes of the defendant, and 

provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, 

or other correctional treatment; (3) the sentencing range established by the 

Guidelines; (4) the pertinent policy statements of the Sentencing Commission; 

(5) the need to avoid unwarranted disparities; and (6) the need to provide 

restitution to any victims of the offense. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); see 18 U.S.C. 

§§ 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B)-(D), (a)(4)-(7). The weight to be given to any § 3553(a) 

factor is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the district court. United 

States v. Clay, 483 F.3d 739, 743 (11th Cir. 2007). Further, because the Guidelines 

have always been advisory for revocation sentences, only some indication that the 

district court was aware of and considered the Guidelines is necessary. United 

States v. Campbell, 473 F.3d 1345, 1349 (11th Cir. 2007).

Section 3583(e)(3) sets maximum terms of imprisonment that may be 

imposed when a defendant’s term of supervised release is revoked. 18 U.S.C. 

Case: 13-11691 Date Filed: 10/17/2013 Page: 3 of 4 
4

§ 3583(e)(3). Where the original offense of conviction is a class C felony, a 

defendant whose supervised release has been revoked may not be sentenced above 

24 months’ imprisonment. Id.

We conclude from the record that the district court adequately articulated its 

reasons for choosing Cordova’s sentence by stating its concern with the escalating 

nature of his offenses and its belief that he showed a disregard for the law. See 

Campbell, 473 F.3d at 1349. The court believed that these factors warranted a 

high-end guideline sentence, but credited Cordova with his time served in state 

custody and imposed a sentence of ten months’ imprisonment. Similarly, we 

conclude that the district court was within its discretion in determining how much 

weight to afford Cordova’s state sentences, and the commentary to the Sentencing 

Guidelines provides that any sentence imposed following the revocation of 

supervised release is intended to be applied in addition to any sentences imposed 

for the underlying violations. See Clay, 483 F.3d at 743; U.S.S.G. Ch. 7, Pt.A, 

comment. (3(b)). Accordingly, because Cordova’s ten-month sentence is 

reasonable, we affirm it.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 13-11691 Date Filed: 10/17/2013 Page: 4 of 4