FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT APR 19, 2007 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N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T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. 06- 1350 9 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D . C. D oc ke t N o. 00- 0012 4- CR -C B- 002 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us OL ET HACL EMO NS , Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Appeal f rom the United State s District Court f o r th e S o u th e rnD i s tr i c to f

A l ab a ma

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --

(A pr il 19, 200 7) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, D U BIN Aand C A RN E S, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: De fendant-Appellant O letha Clem ons appeals her 24-m onth sentence im posed up on the revocation of her supervised release. N o reversible er ror has b e e ns h o w n ; w e a f

f i rm.2

In Oc tober 2000 , C lem ons pl eaded guilty to conspi racy

to poss ess stolen
m ail and to comm it bank fraud, in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 371
. Clem ons was sentenced to 24 m onth s im prisonm ent to be followed by three y ears’ supervised relea se. Clem ons first vio lated the term s of her supervised release in October 20 04 , when sh e was arre st edan d c ha rg edwit h s eco ndde gr ee t he ft o f pr op ert y . A ft er am en ta l he al th a sse ssm en t, the dis tr ic t c ourt a llo w ed Cl em ons to c ont inu e on s upe rv ise d r el ea se but or de re d th at

she a tte nd i ndi vid

ua l c ouns el ing se ssi ons and a four-w eek “ Crim e of T heft” course. Again in May

2005 Clem ons vi olated the term s of her supervised release,
w he n sh e w as arr es te d and c harg ed w iththr ee c ount s of

the ft of pr ope rty . A t the
co n cl u s i o no f t h e r ev o ca t i o nh ea ri n g , t h e d i s tri ctco u rtm o d i fi edCl emo n s ’s
c o n d i t i o n s o f

s up e rv i s e dr e l e a s e : s h e w a s p l a c e do ns i x mo n th s ’ h o me confinem ent with electr onic m onito ring so th at she could conti nue her
em plo ym en t and c ar e fo r he r ch ildre n. T he dis tr ic t c ourt a dvi se d C le m ons expr es sly that tw o y ea

rs ’ im pr iso nm en t w oul d be im

pose d if she a ga in v iol at ed

the term s of her supervised release. On 1 2 Ap ri l 2 0 0 6 , t h e p ro b at i o no ff i ce fi l edfo r r ev o ca t i o no f C l emo n s ’s supe rv ise d r el ea se a ft er

Cl em ons w as arr es te d and c harg ed w ithc re dit

c ar d f ra ud, poss es sio n of

sto le n pr ope rt

y , and f ai lur e to a cc om

pany apol ic e of

fi ce r. A t a3

he ar ing he ld o n 6 July

200 6, Cl em ons ex ec ute d aw ai ve r adm itt ing the f ac ts o f the supe rv ise d r el ea se vio latio n. T he dis tr ic t c ourt se nte nc ed Cl em ons to the
m ax im um im pr iso nm en t - - 24 m onths - - unde r ana dvi sor y gui de lin e range of

21 to 2 4 m onths’ im

pr iso nm en t. C le m ons obj ec te d th at she sho uld

be c re dit ed

f or the tim e that sh e ha d sp en t i n ho m e co nf ine m en t. Clem ons raises two issues on appeal: (i) whether the sentence im posed was
reas on ab le in th e li gh t o f th e d is tri ctco urt’s fa il ur e to m en ti on th e 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s; an d (i i) wh et he r th e se nt en ce i m po se d v io la te d 1 8 U.S.C. § 3583 (e)( 3) because it exce eded the m axim um of 24 m onth s’ im

prisonm ent when
co m bin ed w iththe hom e co nf

ine m en t a lr ea dy

se rv ed
. About the first issue, the re cord indicates that the dist rict court considered the se ct ion355 3 ( a) f

ac tor s a lbe it w ith out

r ef er en ci ng those f

ac tor s e xpr es sly
. T he dis tr ic t c ourt’ s se nte nc e w as pr ed ic at ed on C le m ons’ s pe rs ona l hi sto ry and charac teristics, her

risk to the pub lic, the a dviso ry guidelin e range, and her rep eat edvi ol at io ns of s up erv is edrel eas e an d t he co ns eque ntne edforde te rren ce. T he se c onsi de ratio ns e vid en ce the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s c om pli an ce w ithse ct ion 3553 (a). See 18 U. S. C. § 355 3(a)( 1), ( 2)(B) -(C) , 4(B ). N o requirem ent exists th at the district court “ state on the record that it has explicitly considered each of the § 3553 (a ) fa ct or s or

to dis cu ss e ac h of

the § 35 53( a) f

ac tor s. ” U nit ed

S tate s v. S co tt,T h e g o v e r nm e n t ar gu e s th at p l a i n e r r o r r e v i e w a

p p l i e s t o C l e m o n s ’ s s e c t i o n 3 55 3( a ) c la im * beca use she made no objection at sente ncingbased on the district court’s fa ilure to consider the 35 53 (a ) f a c tor s o r o n th e re a so na

ble ne ss o f t

he se nte nc e imp os e d. B e c a us e Cle mon s’ s c la im f

a ils even unde r pre serve d err or re view, we need not now r esolve the a pplicable standa

rd of r eview. 4 426 F.3d 132 4, 1329 (11 Cir. 2005 ). Clem ons’s cla im of unreasonableness based th
on a f ai lur e to c onsi de r the se ct ion355 3( a) f ac tor s is w ith out

m er it. * About the se co nd i ssu e, w e doub t tha t ho m e co nf ine m en t i s th e equiv al en t of im pr iso nm en t, w hic h C le m ons m ust sho wto es ta

bli sh tha t the statut or

y m ax im um im pr iso nm en t un de r se ct ion358 3( e) (3 ) w as e xc ee de d. P re ce de nt i n th e co nte xt o f 18 U. S. C. § 358 5(b) -- which addresses cr edit for presentence confinem ent -- re j ec ts c hara ct er iz ing pr etri al hom e co nf ine m en t a s “ of

fi ci al de te nti on” f

or pur pose s of aw ar din g se nte nc ing c re dit und er se ct ion358 5. S ee Ro dr igu ezv. L am ar , 60 F
. 3d 7 45, 748 ( 11 Ci r. 199 5)
. A nd w e have sa id tha t “ re le as e th stipu lations o r im

posed con ditio ns that do not sub j ect a per son to full phy sical inc ar ce ratio n do not

qua lif y a s of fi ci al de te nti on. ” D aw son v. S co tt, 50 F
. 3d 8 84, 888 (11 Cir. 1995 ).

th U n d e r s e c t i o n3 5 8 3 ( e ) , th e d i s tr i c tc o u rti s au th o r i z e dt o i mp o s e h o me co nf ine m en t “ as an a lte rn at ive to inc ar ce ratio n. ” 18 U
. S. C. § 35 83( e) (4 ). T he d i s tri ctco u rtex er ci s edi t s s ec t i o n3 5 8 3 (e )( 4 ) au th o ri ty wh en i tm o d i fi edCl emo n s ’s supervised release instead of revoking it in 2005
. When Clem ons again v iolated5

the te rm s of

he r supe rv ise d r el ea se in 2006 , the c ourt ha d auth or ity to re voke Cl em ons’ s m odi fi ed

sup er vis ed r el ea se and t o im

pose ate rm

of im pr iso nm en t. 18 U . S. C. § 35 83( e) (3 ). Ase nte nc e of im pr iso nm en t m ay

be im pose d up on re voc at ionof

sup er vis ed r el ea se e ve n whe re the statut or y m ax im um te rm of im pr iso nm en t f

or an of fe nse a lr ea dy

ha s be en se rv ed ; and whe n su

pe rv ise d r el ea se is r ev oke d, the de fe ndant m ay be r equir ed

to “ se rv e in p ri son” the te rm of supe rv ise d r el ea se “ w ith out c re dit f or ti m e pr ev iou sly

se rv ed on p ostre le as e supervisio n.” Id.; see United State s v. Pr octor, 127 F. 3d 13 11, 1313 (11 Cir. th 1997 ). In the light of section 35 83(e)(3)’ s clear direction that no cre dit be awar ded for postrelease supervision, we see no m erit in Clem ons’s cla im that the statutory
m ax im um un de r th atsec ti on was e xc eed ed
. AFFIR MED.