[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 13-14063

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:12-tp-20139-JAL-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

NABETSE DEARMAS,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(February 25, 2014)

Before HULL, PRYOR and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Case: 13-14063 Date Filed: 02/25/2014 Page: 1 of 9 
2

Nabetse DeArmas appeals his 24-month sentence imposed upon revocation 

of his supervised release term, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). On appeal, 

DeArmas contends his sentence is unreasonable. After review, we affirm

DeArmas’s sentence.

I. CONVICTION AND SUPERVISED RELEASE

In 2009, DeArmas pled guilty to access device fraud and aggravated identity 

theft. DeArmas’s underlying offenses involved his use of fraudulent credit cards to 

purchase store merchandise. DeArmas served a 37-month sentence. On 

November 23, 2011, DeArmas began his three-year supervised release term. As a 

mandatory condition of supervised release, DeArmas was prohibited from 

violating any state law.

On November 27, 2012, DeArmas again used fraudulent credit cards, this 

time to purchase store gift cards. DeArmas was arrested and charged in Florida 

state court with trafficking in counterfeit credit cards and obtaining property under 

$20,000. Based on these state charges, DeArmas’s probation officer petitioned for 

revocation of supervised release.

II. REVOCATION OF SUPERVISED RELEASE

At the revocation hearing, DeArmas admitted the state-law violations, and

the district court revoked DeArmas’s supervised release. The probation officer’s 

revocation report indicated that: (1) DeArmas had Grade B violations and a 

Case: 13-14063 Date Filed: 02/25/2014 Page: 2 of 9 
3

criminal history category of IV, and (2) DeArmas’s advisory guidelines range 

under Chapter 7 was 12 to 18 months’ imprisonment. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a). 

Because DeArmas was on supervised release for a Class C felony, the statutory 

maximum sentence upon revocation was two years. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). 

The parties did not dispute the probation officer’s guidelines calculations and 

jointly requested an 18-month sentence at the top of the advisory guideline range.

The district court imposed the statutory maximum 24-month sentence, 

followed by 12 months of supervised release and 450 hours of community service. 

In determining that “a sentence at the maximum, pursuant to statute, [was] the 

appropriate sentence,” the district court stated that it had considered the § 3553(a) 

factors and cited specifically “the nature and circumstances of this offense and the 

history and characteristics of the Defendant, the need for the sentence imposed to 

promote respect for the law, to provide just punishment and afford adequate 

deterrence.”

The district court pointed out that DeArmas already had committed three 

prior offenses involving credit card fraud between 2006 and 2009, and then 

exclaimed, “Wow.” The district court described DeArmas’s new credit card 

offenses as “plainly unacceptable conduct” and warned DeArmas that if he 

appeared before the court again for violating supervised release by committing 

identity theft or credit card fraud, the court would again “put [him] back in jail for 

Case: 13-14063 Date Filed: 02/25/2014 Page: 3 of 9 
4

the maximum amount of time” possible and advised DeArmas that he “had better 

change [his] ways.”

III. LEGAL PRINCIPLES GOVERNING REVOCATION SENTENCES

When a defendant violates a condition of supervised release, the court may 

revoke the term of supervised release and impose a prison term after considering 

certain factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3).1

 The 

district court also must consider the policy statements in Chapter 7 of the 

Sentencing Guidelines, one of which, U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4, provides recommended, 

non-binding ranges of imprisonment. United States v. Silva, 443 F.3d 795, 799 

(11th Cir. 2006); U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4. However, the district court need not discuss or 

explicitly address on the record each § 3553(a) factor. United States v. Scott, 426 

F.3d 1324, 1329 (11th Cir. 2005).

“We review the sentence imposed upon the revocation of supervised release 

for reasonableness.” United States v. Velasquez Velasquez, 524 F.3d 1248, 1252 

(11th Cir. 2008). Our reasonableness review applies the deferential abuse of 

discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 46, 128 S. Ct. 586, 

 1

Specifically, in a revocation proceeding, the relevant factors the district court must 

consider are: (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, protect the 

public and provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training or medical care; 

(3) the Sentencing Guidelines range and pertinent policy statements of the Sentencing 

Commission; (4) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities; and (5) the need to provide 

restitution. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (cross-referencing 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B)-(D), 

(a)(4)-(7)).

Case: 13-14063 Date Filed: 02/25/2014 Page: 4 of 9 
5

591, 594 (2007). In reviewing for reasonableness, we first consider whether the 

district court committed any significant procedural error and then whether the 

sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the relevant § 3553(a) factors and 

the totality of the circumstances. United States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179, 1190 (11th 

Cir. 2008). The party challenging the sentence has the burden to show it is 

unreasonable. United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir. 2005).

If the district court decides to impose an upward variance, “it must ‘consider 

the extent of the deviation and ensure that the justification is sufficiently 

compelling to support the degree of the variance.’” United States v. Williams, 526 

F.3d 1312, 1322 (11th Cir. 2008) (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 50, 128 S. Ct. at 597). 

However, we will vacate such a sentence “only if we are left with the definite and 

firm conviction that the district court committed a clear error of judgment in 

weighing the § 3553(a) factors by arriving at a sentence that lies outside the range 

of reasonable sentences dictated by the facts of the case.” United States v. Shaw, 

560 F.3d 1230, 1238 (11th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).

IV. DEARMAS’S CLAIMS

Procedurally, DeArmas contends that the district court failed to consider the 

advisory guidelines range and to give a specific reason for the 6-month upward 

variance from 18 months (the top end) to 24 months (the statutory maximum). 

One of the § 3553(a) factors the district court must consider is the advisory 

Case: 13-14063 Date Filed: 02/25/2014 Page: 5 of 9 
6

sentencing range recommended by Chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines. See

United States v. Campbell, 473 F.3d 1345, 1348 (11th Cir. 2007). Given the 

advisory nature of the guidelines, it is sufficient if there is “some indication that the 

district court was aware of and considered” them. Id. at 1349 (quotation marks 

omitted). 

Here, although the district court never expressly stated on the record that 

DeArmas’s guidelines range was 12 to 18 months, the record indicates that the 

district court was fully aware of and considered that range. First, the district court 

stated that it had reviewed the probation officer’s report, which contained the 

guidelines calculations and the resulting advisory guidelines range of 12 to 18 

months. See United States v. Dorman, 488 F.3d 936, 944 (11th Cir. 2007) 

(concluding that the district court considered the § 3553(a) factor and calculated 

the guidelines range based, in part, on the court’s statements that it had considered 

the presentence investigation report and the parties’ arguments). Second, the 

district court also stated that it had considered the § 3553(a) factors, one of which 

is the advisory guidelines range. The district court further stated it had considered 

the statements of the parties, which includes the parties’ statements at the 

revocation hearing that 18 months was the high end of the guidelines range. See

Scott, 426 F.3d at 1329-30 (concluding that the district court adequately considered 

the guidelines range when it “explicitly acknowledged that it had considered” the 

Case: 13-14063 Date Filed: 02/25/2014 Page: 6 of 9 
7

defendant’s arguments and the § 3553(a) factors). Thus, the record reflects that the 

district court was aware of and considered the advisory guidelines range.

We also find no merit to DeArmas’s claim that the district court failed to 

adequately explain the 24-month sentence imposed. Although DeArmas stresses 

that he received the statutory maximum sentence, that sentence amounted to only a 

6-month variance. It is clear from the district court’s statements during the 

revocation hearing that the court was concerned, based on DeArmas’s condensed 

history of credit card fraud, that DeArmas was a persistent recidivist and that this 

concern was the reason for the 6-month variance. Accordingly, DeArmas has not 

shown any procedural error in the court’s imposition of his revocation sentence.

Finally, DeArmas has not shown that the 6-month variance is substantively 

unreasonable. DeArmas’s current supervised release violations are only the latest 

in a string of theft- and fraud-related convictions, many of which involved credit 

cards. Between 2006 and 2009, DeArmas was convicted three times of offenses 

involving counterfeit credit cards bearing aliases which DeArmas used to purchase 

store merchandise, including laptop computers. Specifically, in July 2007,

DeArmas was convicted of access device fraud in the Middle District of Florida, 

and served a prison term of one year and one day. In July 2008, DeArmas was 

convicted in Georgia state court of financial transaction fraud and forgery

committed in 2006. In fact, DeArmas was on supervised release for his 2007 

Case: 13-14063 Date Filed: 02/25/2014 Page: 7 of 9 
8

federal offense when he committed the underlying credit card fraud offenses in this 

case in December 2008. And, after serving a 37-month sentence and only one year 

into his current supervised release term, DeArmas again was caught using 

fraudulent credit cards.

DeArmas’s history shows he is a particularly persistent recidivist who was 

undeterred by his previous one-year state sentence or his 37-month federal 

sentence. Given the similarities between DeArmas’s supervised release violations 

and his prior credit card fraud offenses, the district court was well within its 

discretion to give greater weight to DeArmas’s criminal history. See United States 

v. Clay, 483 F.3d 739, 743 (11th Cir. 2007) (“The weight to be accorded any given 

§3553(a) factor is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the district court . . 

. .”). DeArmas’s criminal history and the need to protect the public from DeArmas 

and to deter further criminal conduct by DeArmas provided compelling 

justifications for the district court to impose the 6-month upward variance to the 

statutory maximum of 24 months. 

There is no merit to DeArmas’s argument that the district court

inappropriately relied on his criminal history because the advisory guidelines range 

had already accounted for his prior convictions. The district court may consider 

conduct used to calculate the advisory guidelines range in deciding whether to 

impose a variance in light of the § 3553(a) factors. United States v. Amedeo, 487 

Case: 13-14063 Date Filed: 02/25/2014 Page: 8 of 9 
9

F.3d 823, 833 (11th Cir. 2007). Furthermore, DeArmas’s criminal history category 

did not reflect the short period of time in which DeArmas accrued his prior credit 

card fraud convictions or the rapidity with which DeArmas returned to credit card 

fraud once out of prison and on supervised release.

Under the totality of the circumstances, we cannot say the district court 

abused its discretion in imposing the 6-month upward variance.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 13-14063 Date Filed: 02/25/2014 Page: 9 of 9