FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T MARCH 23, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 12 14 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock et No. 5 :9 9- cr-0 00 88 -HL-1

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,

vers us
DETRICH DEMOND W ALLER,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defend an t-Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t for th e Mi dd le Dis tri ct of Ge or gi a

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma rch 23 , 20 11 )

Befo re HULL, MARCUS an d M ARTIN, Cir cu it Ju dg es

. PER CURI AM:

Detr ic h Dem on d W al le r a p p eal s hi s 60 -m on th ab ov e-g ui de li ne se nt en ce
im po se d fo ll owi ng rev oc at io n of hi s su pe rv is ed r e l e a s e

. On ap pe al , W al le r arg ue sth at : (1 ) th e di st ric t co ur t pl ai nl y erre d in fai li ng to as k hi m or hi s co un se l whe th er he

ha d be en gi ve n an op po rtu ni ty to read an d di sc us s hi s rev oc at io n rep or t wit h co un se l; (2 ) hi s se nt en ce is bo th pr oc ed ur al ly an d su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le ; an d (3 ) th e
di st ric t co ur t pl ai nl y erre d in fin di ng th at he po ss es se d w i t h i n te nt to di st rib ut e

m ari juan a wit hi n 1,0 00 feet of a recr eat io n cen te r, in vi ol at io n o f O .C.G.A. §

16 -1 3- 32 .5(a ). After care fu l re vi ew, we affi rm

. W e rev ie w de no vo th e le ga li ty of a se nt en ce im po se d pu rs ua nt to rev oc at io n
of a su pe rv is ed rel eas e te rm . Uni te d S ta te s v . Maza rk y , 49 9 F .3d 12 46 , 12 48 (11 th

Ci r. 20 07 ). W al le r di d no t p r e s en t th e al le ge d rev oc at io n rep or t or O.C.G.A. §

16 -1 3- 32 .5(a ) erro rs to th e di st ric t co ur t; co ns eq ue nt ly, to pr ev ai l on th es e is su es , he

m us t sh ow pl ai n erro r. To de m on st rat e pl ai n erro r, W al le r “ m us t sh ow th at : (1 ) an

erro r oc cu rred ; (2 ) th e erro r was pl ai n; (3 ) it affe ct ed hi s su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s; an d (4 ) it

se rio us ly affe ct ed th e fai rn es s of th e jud ic ia l pr oc eed in gs .” Uni te d St at es v. Gres ha m , 32 5 F.3 d 12 62 , 12 65 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 03 )

. We rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s ul ti m at e

se nt en ce im

po se d up on rev oc at io n of su pe rv is ed rel eas e fo r reas on ab le ne ss

. Uni te d

S t at es v. Sweet in g, 43 7 F.3 d 11 05 , 11 06 -0 7 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 06 ). Als o, we rev i e w f o r
ab us e of di sc ret io n a di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on to ex ceed th e Ch ap te r 7 reco m m en de d

gu id el in es ran ge . Uni te d S ta te s v . Sil va , 44 3 F .3d 79 5, 7 98 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ).

2Fi rs t, we reject W al le r’s cl ai m th at th e di st ric t co ur t pl ai nl y erre d in fai li ng to

as k hi m or hi s co un se l whe th er he ha d be en gi ve n an op po rtu ni ty to read an d di sc us s
hi s rev o cat io n rep or t wit h co un se l, pu rs ua nt to Fed .R.Cri m .P. 32 (i) (1 )(A).

Fed .R.Cri m .P. 32 .1 go ve rn s a de fe nda nt’ s supe rv ise d re le as e re voc at io n pr oc eed in gs

. At hi s rev oc at io n he ari ng , a p e r s o n i s en ti tl ed to : (1 ) writ te n no ti ce of th e al le ge d

vi ol at io n; (2 ) di sc lo su r e of th e ev id en ce ag ai ns t th e pe rs on ; (3 ) an op po rtu ni ty to

ap pe ar, pr es en t ev id en ce, an d qu es ti on an y ad ve rs e wit ne ss un le ss th e co ur t
de te rm in es th at th e in te res t of jus ti ce do es no t req ui re th e wit ne ss to ap p e a r ; ( 4)

no ti ce of th e pe rs on ’s rig ht to ret ai n co un se l or to requ es t th at co un se l be app oi nt ed

if th e pe rs on can no t ob ta in co un se l; an d (5) an op po rtu ni ty to m ak e a st at em en t an d

pr es en t an y in fo rm at io n in m it ig at io n. Fed .R.Cri m .P. 32 .1(b )(2 ). Unl ik e Ru le 32 .1,

Ru le 32 , whi ch rel at es to “ Sen te nc in g an d Ju dg m en t,” req ui res th at “ [a]t se nt en ci ng , th e co ur t[] m

us t ve rif y th at th e de fen da nt an d th e de fen da nt ’s at to rn ey ha ve read an d

di sc us se d th e pr es en te nc e rep or t an d an y ad de nd um to th e rep or t.” Fed .R

. C r i m.P.

32 (i) (1 )(A).

W hi le W al le r at te mp t s t o d r a w a pa ral le l be twee n Ru le 32 , whi ch ap pl ie s to

se nt en ci ng , a nd Ru le 32 .1, whi ch ap p l i e s to rev oc at io n pr oc eed in gs , n ot hi ng in th e pl ai n la ng ua ge of Ru le 32 .1 req ui res th e di st ric t co ur t to as k whe th er a de fen da nt ha s

rev ie wed hi s rev oc at io n rep or t. See Fed .R.Cri m .P. 32 .1. W hi le Ru le 32 sp eci fic al ly

3ap pl ie s “ at se nt en ci ng ” an d req ui res th e di st ric t cou rt to as k a de fen da nt whe th er he

an d hi s at to rn ey ha ve di sc u s s e d t h e “ pr es en te nc e rep or t,” Ru le 32 .1 ha s no si m il ar

req ui rem en t th at th e co ur t as k th e de fen da nt or hi s at to rn ey whe th er he ha s di sc us se d

th e rev oc at io n rep or t. Fed .R.Cri m .P. 32 (i) (1 )(A); Fed .R.Cri m .P. 32 .1. Bas ed on th e pl ai n la ng ua ge of Ru le 32

. 1 , t h e di st ric t co ur t di d no t pl ai nl y err in fai li ng to as k

W al le r or hi s at to rn ey

if t he y ha d re vi ewed th e rev oc at io n re po rt.

W e al so fin d no m eri t in W al le r’s cl ai m th at hi s se nt en ce is pr oc e d u r a l l y o r

su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le

. In rev ie win g se nt en ces fo r reas on ab le ne ss , we pe rfo rm

two st ep s. Uni te d St at es v. Pu gh , 51 5 F.3 d 11 79 , 11 90 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 08 ). Fi rs t, we

m us t “ ‘ens ur e th at th e di st ric t co ur t co m m it te d no si gn ifi can t pr oc ed ur al erro r, su ch

as fai li ng to cal cu la te (o r im pr op erl y cal cu la ti ng ) th e Gui de li ne s ra ng e, tr eat in g t he

Gui de li ne s as m an da to ry , fai li ng to co ns id er th e § 35 53 (a) f a ct or s, se le ct in g a

se nt en ce ba se d on cl earl y erro ne ou s fact s, or fai li ng to ad eq ua te ly ex pl ai n th e ch os en

se nt en ce -- in cl ud in g an ex pl an at io n fo r an y de vi at io n fro m th e Gui de li ne s ran ge .’ ”

Id

. (q uo ti ng Gall v. Uni te d St at es , 55 2 U.S. 38 , 51 (2 00 7) ). The di st ric t cou rt nee d 1

Under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e) , a district court may consider the following § 3553(a) fac tors 1 in revoking a term of sup er vised rele ase: (1) the nature and circ umstances of the offe nse and the history and char acte ristics of the defe ndant; (2) the need for the sentenc e imposed to aff ord adequate deter renc e; (3) the need to protec t the public; (4) the need to provide the defe ndant with educational
or vocational training or medical car e; (5) the Sentencing Guidelines rang e; (6) the pertinent policy statements of the S entenc ing Comm ission; (7) t he need t o avoid unwanted sentenc ing disparities; and (1 0 ) the need to provide restitution to victims. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (1), (a) (2)( B) , (a) (2)( C), (a) (2)( D), a

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

4no t d is cu ss each § 3 55 3( a) facto r. Uni te d Stat es v. Talle y , 43 1 F .3d 78 4, 7 86 (11 th

Ci r. 20 0 5 )

. Rat he r, “ [t]he se nt en ci ng jud ge sh ou ld se t fo rth en ou gh to sa ti sf y th e

ap pe ll at e co ur t th at he ha s co ns id ered th e pa rti es ’ arg um en ts an d ha s a reas on ed ba si s
fo r ex erci si ng hi s own le ga l de ci si on m ak in g au th or it y .” R i t a v

. U ni te d St at es , 5 51

U.S. 33 8, 3 56 . (20 07 )

If we co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t pr oc ed ur al ly err, we m us t co ns id er
th e “ ‘sub st an ti ve reas on ab le n e s s o f th e se nt en ce im po se d un de r an ab us e-o fdi sc ret io n st an da rd ,’ ” ba se d on th e “ ‘tot al it y of th e ci rcu m st an ces .’ ” Pu gh , 51 5 F.3 d

at 11 90 (q uo ti ng Gall , 55 2 U.S. at 51 ). Thi s revi ew is “ de fere nt ia l,” req ui rin g us to
de te r mi n e “wh et he r th e se nt en ce im po se d by th e di st ric t co ur t fai ls to ach ie ve th e

pu rp os es of se nt en ci ng as st at ed in se ct io n 35 53 (a).” Tall ey , 43 1 F .3d at 7 88 . Th e weig hi ng of § 35 53 (a) fact or s is wit hi n th e co ur t’s di sc ret io n, so lo ng as th e co ur t ha s

m ad e no cl ear erro r of jud gm en t. See Uni te d St at es v. Irey, 61 2 F.3 d 11 60 , 11 89 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 10 ) (en ba nc ) (rev ie win g go ve rn m en t ap pe a l o f d o w nwa rd va ria nc e),

pe ti ti on fo r cert

. fil ed , (U.S. Nov

. 24 , 20 10 ) (No

. 10 -7 27 ). Th e bu rd en is on th e
de fen da nt to sh ow th at th e se nt en ce was un reas on ab le in li gh t o f th e rec or d a nd th e § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s. Tal le y , 43 1 F .3d at 7 88

.
H er e, the dis tri ct co ur t co rrec tl y cal cu la te d W al le r’s Ch ap te r 7 se nte nc ing ra nge

as 30 to 37 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t, wh ic h Wall er d oe s n ot di sp ut e o n a pp eal , bas ed

5on hi s or ig in al se nt en ci ng cri m in al hi st or y cat eg or y of III an d hi s Grad e A vi ol at io n.

See U.S.S.G. §§ 7B 1.1 (a)( 1) (A)(i i), 7B 1.4 (a) ( t a b le ). Alt ho ug h W al le r’s se nt en ce

ex ceed ed th e ad vi so ry se nt en ci ng ran ge se t ou t in th e Ch ap te r 7 po li cy st at em en ts , th e
di st ric t co ur t was no t req ui red to se nt en ce W al le r wit hi n th at ran ge

. Here, th e di st ric t

co ur t ex pr es sl y co ns id ered th e ad vi so ry gu id el in e ran ge whe n it no te d th at a gu id el in e

se nt en ce was no t an ap pr op ria te sen te nc e.
Mo reo ve r, co nt rary to W al le r’s as se rti on , th e co ur t ex pl ic tl y st at ed th at it ha d

co ns id ered th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s. The co ur t fu rth er st at ed th at W al le r’s se nt en ce was

“ ba se d o n t he ser io us ne ss of t he off en se , i n or de r to pr om ot e res pe ct for th e la w, to

p r ov id e jus t pu ni sh m en t fo r th e vi ol at io n of fen se s, to affo rd ad eq ua te de te rren t s t o
cri m in al co nd uc t, an d to pr ot ect th e pu bl ic .” Sp eci fic al ly, aft er li st en in g to te st im on y
ab ou t ho w W al le r res is te d arre st a n d a t t em pt ed to wres tl e a Tase r away fro m an
of fic er, t he co ur t fo un d t ha t Wall er’s “ co nd uc t was reckl es s as it pl aced th e li ve s o f

o f f ic ers as well [as ] y ou rs el f in gr eat jeop ard y .” In ad di ti on , W al le r ha d m ul ti pl e

su pe rv is ed rel eas e vi o l a t i on s an d hi s po ss es si on wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e vi ol at io n

co n s t i t u t e d a Grad e A v io la ti on un de r ei th er st at e or fed eral la w. Thu s, th e di st ric t

co ur t ex pr es sl y co ns id er e d t h e a dv is or y gu id el in e ran ge , ad eq ua te ly weig he d th e §

355 3( a) fact or s, an d ex pl ai ne d it s reas on s fo r im po sin g thi s ab ove -g uid el ine se nte nc e.

6Last ly, we are un p e r s ua de d by W al le r’s cl ai m th at th e di st ric t co ur t pl ai nl y

erre d in fin di ng th at he po ss es se d wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e m ari juan a wit hi n 1,0 00 feet

of a recr eat io n cen te r, in vi ol at io n of O.C.G.A. § 16 -1 3- 32 .5(a ). Pu rs ua nt to Geo rg ia

la w, it is :

un la wfu l fo r an y pe rs on to m an uf act ur e, di st rib ut e, di sp en se , or po ss es s wit h i nt en t t o d is tri bu te a co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e o r m ari juan a . . . in, o n, or wit hi n 1,0 00 feet of an y real pr op ert y whi ch ha s bee n ded ic at ed an d
se t ap art by th e go ve rn in g au th or it y of an y m un ic ip al it y , co un ty, st at e au th or it y , or th e st at e fo r us e as a pa rk , pl ay gr ou nd , recr eat io n cen te r, or fo r an y ot he r rec reat io n p ur

po se s.
Ga. Co de Ann

. § 16 -1 3- 32 .5(a ). Pu rs ua nt to § 16 -1 3- 32 .5, th e St at e ne ed on ly sh ow
th at th e accu se d kn owi ng ly p o s s e s se d th e il le ga l dr ug s wit h th e in te nt to di st rib ut e
th em , n ot th a t h e k n e w h e w as wit hi n 1,0 00 feet of a pr ot ect ed pl ace. See Jo ne s v.
St at e, 69 5 S.E.2d 66 5, 66 8 (Ga. Ct

. App

. 20 10 ) (in te rp ret in g § 16 -1 3- 32 .5(b ) whi ch

tra ck s t he lan gu ag e o f su bs ect io n (a ) bu t ap pl ie s t o h ou si ng pro jects ).

W al le r ha s no t sh own th at th e di st ric t c o u r t pl ai nl y erre d in fin di ng th at he

vi ol at ed Ga. Co de Ann

. §1 6- 13 -3 2.5 (a). Am on g ot he r th in gs , W al le r ha s no t sh own

a reas on ab le pr ob ab il it y th at hi s su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s were affe ct ed

. In de ed , ev en if he

d id no t vi ol at e Ga. Co de Ann

. § 16 -1 3- 32 .5(a ), W al le r st il l vi ol at ed hi s su pe rv i s e d

rel eas e by (1 ) po ss es si ng m ari juan a, (2 ) po ss es si ng m ar iju an a wit h in te nt to
di st rib ut e, an d (3 ) en ga gi ng in th e fel on y ob st ru ct io n of an of fic er, a l l o f whi ch he

7do es no t ch al le ng e on ap pe al

. W hi le W al le r co nt en ds th at it is un cl ear ho w m uc h th is

vi ol at io n weig he d in to hi s ul ti m at e se nt en ce, th is co nt en ti on is wit ho ut mer it

. The

di st ric t co ur t di d no t sp eci fic al ly rely on th is vi ol at io n, b ut , i ns te ad , b as ed W al le r’s

se nt en ce on hi s ov eral l co n d uc t whi ch in vo lv ed po ss es si on of a di st rib ut io n le ve l

qu an ti ty of m ari

juan a an d res is ti ng arre st

. Acco rd in gl y , he can no t sh ow a reas on ab le

pr ob ab il it y

th at th e al le ge d e rro r affe ct ed hi s s ub st an ti al rig ht s.
AFFIRMED.

8