### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT J une 7, 20 05 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]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. 04- 1516 1 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 3- 80 01 2- TP-KLR UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee,
ve rs us JOSE PH TU RNE R, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt f or the So uth er n D istri ct of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J un e 7, 200 5) Be fo re T JO FL A T , D U BIN A a nd H U L L , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

Af ter pleading guil ty , def

endant Jos eph Turner

appeals his federal sentence of 24 m onths’ im

pr iso nm en t, w hic h w as im pose d f or vio la tin g th e co ndi tio ns o f his f ed er al sup er

vis ed r el ea se a nd w hic h is to be se rv ed c onse cu tiv el y

to his separate 20-y ear state sentence for bank robb ery . On appeal, Tur ner challenges his cons ecutive feder al sentence of 24 m onth s’ im prisonm ent under United States
v . B o o k e r , 5 4 3 U
. S
. _

_ , 1 2 5 S
. C t . 7 3 8 ( 2 0 0 5 )
. A f t e r r e v i e w , w e a f

f i rm. I. BACK GROUND A . U nd er lyi ng Of

fe ns e O n January

10, 200 0, T ur

ne r ple d gu ilty

in the E as te rnD istri ct

of N orth Carolina to bank robbery , in violation o f 18 U. S. C. § 211 3(a). T he district court sentenced Turner

to 46 m onth s’ im

prisonm ent followed by

three y ears’ supervised
re l ea s e. On Oc t o b er4 , 2 0 0 0 , t h e U n i t ed St at es m o v ed fo r a re du ct i o n i n Tu rn er ’s
s en t en ce , p u rs u an tt o Fe d er al Ru l e o f C ri m i n al Pr o ce du re 3 5 (b ), b as ed o n Tu rn er ’s
s ub s t an t i al as s i s t an ce . Th e d i s t ri ct co u rt g ra n t ed t h e mot i o n an dre du ce dTu rn er ’s
se nte nc e to 2 3 m onths’ im pr iso nm en t onthe f

ed er al bank r obbe ry

c onvi ct ion
. T he di st ric t co ur t l eftth e th ree- y ear t erm of s up erv is edrel eas e u nc ha ng ed
. B. Supe rvised-R elease V iolations Turner served his am ended prison term for the f ederal bank robbery
co nvi ct iona nd b eg anse rv ing his sup er vis ed r el ea se te rm

on M ar ch14, 200 1, in3

the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida
. O n S ep te m

be r 26, 200 2, T ur

ne r w as a rr es te d and ch ar ge d w ithdom es tic ba tte ry in vio la tio n of

F lor ida law . T he dis tr ic t c ourt i n th e E as te rnD istri ct

of N orth C ar oli naor de re d T ur ne r to unde rg o pl ac em en t i n a
com m unitycorre ctions center for 90 day s. O n October 31, 2002 , the district court i n t h e E as t ern Di s t ri ct o f N o rt h Ca ro l i n a t ra n s fe rr ed ju ri s d i ct i o n o f T u rn er ’s supervised release to the Southern District of F lorida. On July 22, 2003, a fe deral probation officer f iled a petition in the district
c o u rti n t h e S o u t h e rn D i s t r i c to f F l o r i d aa l l e g i n g t h a tT u rn e r h a dv i o l a t e dt h e t e rms of his sup er vis ed r el ea se on the f

ed er al bank r obbe ry

c onvi ct iona nd
recom m ending that Turner ’ s supervised release be re voked. The petition alleged tha t T ur ne r ha d vi ola te d th e co ndi tio ns o f his f ed er al sup er

vis ed r el ea se by : ( 1) be ing a rr es te d and c harg ed in state c ourt w ithbank r obbe ry in Fl or ida

on June 20, 2003 ; ( 2) be ing a rr es te d and c harg ed in state c ourt w itha ggr av at ed a ssa ult on a lawe nf or ce m en t of

fi ce r, ba tte ry

on a lawe nf or ce m en t of

fi ce r, r es ist ing a rr es t w ith vio le nc e, de pr ivi ng a

lawe nf or ce m en t of

fi ce r of c om m uni catio n, a nd p oss es sio n of m ar ij uana ; ( 3) le av ing the j udi ci al j ur isd ic tio n tw ic e w ith out f ir st s ec ur ing pe rm iss ion ; and ( 4) c om

m itt ing bank r obbe ry

on June 5, 200 3. C. Re vocation Hearing4

O n Ju ly 20, 200 4, am ag istrate j udge he ld a r ev oc at ionhe ar ing on the Jul y 22 , 20 03 pe ti ti on . At th e h eari ng , Turn er ad m it te d t o a ll of t he vi ol at io ns . On A ugus t 13 , 200 4, pr ior

to his se nte nc ing he ar ing , T ur ne r fi le d an ob

j ec tio n inthe district court arguing th at im posit ion and revocation of his federa l supervised relea se we re unconstitu tional un der Blakely v. W ashingt on, 542 U. S. __, 124 S. Ct
. 253 1 ( 2004 ), a nd Appr en di v
. N ewJe rs ey , 530 U
. S. 466 , 120 S
. Ct
. 234 8 (2000). D. Sent encin g Hearing On Se pt em

be r 23 , 20 04 , th e d is tri ctco ur t h el d Tu rn er’s s en te nc in g h eari ng . T ur ne r fi rs t r ea sse rt ed

his Bl ak el y

c la im , w hic h th e dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d, not ing tha t B la ke ly

did not appl y to the G uid el ine s. T ur

ne r’ s c ouns el the n arg ue d th at the 18 to 2 4-m onth Guidelines range for his vio lations o f his federa l supervised
re le as e w as e xc es siv e co nsi de ri ng tha t T ur ne r w oul d be se rv ing a20- y ear state sentence on the bank robb ery and other charges. In re spon se, the district court state d: W ell, he apparently hasn’ t gotten the m essage. He robbed bank s before he we nt to j ail, he got out, he robbed banks again. Appare ntly, h e’s co m m it te d t o a care er o f ro bb in g b an ks
. . . . This is kind o f the reverse o f what I us ually see h ere. I usually see the state c ourt be ing ve ry le nie nt, a nd, y ou know , ti m e af te r tim e j ust getting tim e served or probation
. They com e in to federa l court, and they ge t a se ri ous se nte nc e. N ow w ha t y ou’ re say ing is he ’ s got a se ri ous5

se nte nc e in s ta te c ourt, so [ the ] f ed er al c ourt ou ght

to giv e him

a pa ss .

. . . A ddi tio na lly , the dis tr ic t c ourt no te d th at T ur ne r se rv ed

onl y 19 m onths o f hi s 2 3- m on th ter m

of i m pr is on m en t o n t he fir st fed eral ba nkrob be ry co nv ic ti on . The district court then form ally revoked Turner ’ s supervised release and sentenced Turner to a term of 24 m onth s’ im

prisonm ent on his feder al bank robbery
co nvi ct ionto run c onse cu tiv e to h is 2 0- y ear state se nte nc e fo r se parate bank
ro bbe ri es . I n do ing so, the dis tr ic t c ourt st at ed that “ a se nte nc e w ith in the gu id el in e ran ge is ap pr op ria te .” Turn er ap pe al ed
. II. D ISCU SSION A . M an da to ry v. A dv iso ry Gu id el in es On appeal, Tur

ner ar gues that the dis trict court w as uncertain w hether it had dis cr et ionto se nte nc e T ur ne r to a te rm of f ed er al im pr iso nm en t c onc ur

re nt w ith his 20- y ear state se nte nc e. T ur ne r co nte nds tha t “ba se d onthi s un ce rt ai nty , a nd i n lig ht o f the S upr em e Co urt’ s de ci sio n inBo oke r, w hic h m ak es c le ar that the Fe de ra l S en te nc ing G uid el ine s are a dvi sor y onl y , ” thi s C ourt sh oul d r em an d f or
re se nte nc ing
. W e fi rs t c onc lud e tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt w as not “ unc er ta in” about

it s dis cr et ion , a nd tha t i t r ec ogni ze d th at it ha d th e au tho ri ty

to se nte nc e T ur

ne r to aTh e c omm e nta ry to C ha pte r 7 c on ta ins no n- bin din gpo lic y state me nts and

stat es that a 1 dis tr ic t cou

rt “ may or de r [the ] te rm of imp ri so nme nt t o b e se rv e d c on se c uti ve ly or c on c ur re ntl y to an undischa

rg ed ter m of imprisonment. I t is the policy of the Commi ssion that the sanction imposed upon revoc ation is to be serve d consec utive l y to any other ter m of imprisonment imposed for any criminal conduc t that is the basi s o f the re vocation.” U .S.S.G., C hapter 7, Part B, I

ntroductory C o m m e n t ar

y. 6 te rm of im pr iso nm en t c onc ur

re nt w ithhis state se nte nc e. D ur ing the se nte nc ing he ar ing , the f

oll ow ing c oll oquy

oc curr ed : D E F E N S E C O U

N S E L : W ell, if

y ou f ind th at the guidelin es are ap pli ca ble , w hic h y ou j ust

r ule d, the n y ou knowthat the sup er

vis ed relea se – the ta

ble its el f is a pol ic y state m en t tha t y ou don’ t have t o f o l l o w . S o y o u c a n j u s tg i v e h i m t i me served, or , y ou kn ow, no sentence whatsoever to follow the 20 y ears in state. CO U RT : O r a co nc ur re nt, I gue ss. DEFENSE COUNSEL: Yes , y ou co ul d d o t ha t. . . . C O U R T : C o u l d I d o t h a t ? C an I g i v e a c o n c u rr en t t o the state? PR O BA T IO N : Y ou can do that. T he gui de lin es do reco m m e nd c on se c ut i ve , tho ug h, Y ou r H onor. CO U RT : A ll ri ght
. L at er , the dis tr ic t c ourt sp ec if ic al ly state d th at

the se nte nc e it w as im

posi ng
w as c onse cu tiv e, not

c onc ur re nt, a s f oll ow s: Purs uant t o th e Se nte nc ing Re fo rm A ct of 198 4, it ’ s the j udgm en t of the Co urt tha t the D ef

en dant, Jos ep h Be nj am in T ur ne r, is he re by
. . . to be im prisoned for a term of 24 m onth s, with no supervision to follow. T hat will not be concurrent, it will be consecutive to the state sentence. Thus, the district court re alized that it had the discretion to im pose a concurrent sentence, but ins tead chose to im pose a consecutive sentence. 17

Furthe r, w e co nc lud e tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t c om m it Bo oke r er

ro r by sentencing Turner under a m andatory Guidelines schem e. U nlike the Guidelines at issue in Book er, the supervised-release provisions of the G uidelin es we re al w ay s a dvi sor

y . U
. S. S. G
. Ch
. 7 P t. A (1 ), 3( a) , § 7B 1. 4; s ee U nit ed S ta te s v. Co ok, 291 F
. 3d 1 297, 130 1 ( 11th C ir
. 200 2) ( not ing that C ha pte r Se ve n of

the G uid el ine s, appl ic ab le to re voc at ionof pr oba tio n and s upe rv ise d r el ea se , c ont ai ns nonb ind ing a dvi sor

y pol ic y state m en ts, inc lud ing ata ble w ithte rm s of i mp r i s o n men tb a s e do n t h e g r a d e o f v i o l a t i o n a n dd e f

e n d a n t ’s c r i mi n a l h i s t o ry,
an d st at ing that “ [t ] he S en te nc ing Co m m iss ionha s no t y et

pr om ulg at ed a ny bind ing prob ation revocation gu idelines; in stead, the S entencing Comm issio n has opt ed f or the f le xib ili ty of a dvi sor y pol ic y state m en ts, w hic h are nonbin din g on th e co ur ts ”). B. R ea son ab le ne ss T ur ne r al so arg ue s th at

a24- m onth f

ed er al se nte nc e co nse cu tiv e to a 20- y ear state sentence is unreasonable in this case based on application of the factors set forth in 18 U.S .C. § 3553 (a). W e disagree. Upo n fi nd in g t ha t t he de fen da nt vi ol at eda co nd it io n o f su pe rv is edrel eas e, a dis tr ic t c ourt m ay

r ev oke the te rm

of sup er vis ed r el ea se a nd i m

pose ate rm

ofS p ec i fi ca l l y , th e d i s tri ctco urtmu s tco n s i d er th e f o l l o wi n g: 2 (1) the nature a

nd circ umstances of the offe nse and the history and cha rac teristics of the def endant; (2) the nee d for the se ntence imposed (A) to reflec t the seriousness of the offe nse, to promote re spect for the law, a

nd to provide just punish m en t for the offe nse; (B) t o af

ford adequate deter

renc e to cr iminal conduct; (C) to protec t the pu bli c fr om f

ur the r c ri me s o f t

he de fe nd ant; and (D ) to p ro vid e the de fe nd ant w ith neede d [t reatment] ; . . . (4) the kinds of sentenc e and the sentenc ing r ang e esta blished for . . . ( B) , in the case of a v i o l at i o n of probation or supervised r elea se, the applicable g uidelines or policy statements issued by the SentencingCommi ssion . . . ; and (5) a

ny pertinent policy

statement issued by

the SentencingCommi ssion. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 8 im pr is on m en t af

te r co ns id eri ng cert ai n fa ct or s s etfor th in § 3 55 3( a). 18 U.S.C. § 2 3583 (e ). T he se nte nc ing c ourt “ sha ll state in ope n c ourt the r ea sons f or it s im po si ti on of t he pa rti cu la r se nt en ce.” 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (c). Pr ior to Bo oke r, w e re vie w ed

af ed er al se nte nc e im

pose d a ft er

r ev oc at ionof supervised release using th e “plainlyunreasonable” standard set forth in 18 U.S .C. § 3 74 2( e)(4 ). Uni te d S ta te s v . Scro gg in s, 9 10 F.2d 76 8, 7 69 (11 th Cir . 19 90 ). How ever, in Booker, the S uprem e Court excised § 3742(e)(4), which contained standard s of

r ev ie w , f ro m the S en te nc ing Re fo rm

A ct a nd r ep la ce d it

w itha
reas on ab le ne ss st an da rd . Boo ke r, 12 5 S . Ct. at 76 4- 66
. Po s t -B o o k er , o u r s i s t erci rc u i t s h av e d et er m i n ed t h at Bo o k er ’s reasonableness standard is the sam e as the now- excised “ plainlyunreasonable”
s t an d ar di n § 3 7 4 2 (e )( 4 ). Se e U n i t ed St at es v . Te d fo rd , –F. 3 d– , 2 0 0 5 WL 1023 434, a t *2 ( 10th C ir
. May 3, 200 5) ( “ A lth oughthe S upr em e Co urt’ s de ci sio n9

in Unit ed S ta te s v. Bo oke r al te re d our standard of r ev ie wf or m ost se nte nc ing
ca se s, the standard

of r ev ie wf or c as es w he re the de fe ndant c ha lle nge s th e
re voc at ionof

he r supe rv ise d r el ea se r em ai ns the sam e. ”) ; U nit ed S ta te s v. Co tto n, 399 F. 3d 9 13, 916 ( 8thCi r. 200 5) ( “ [T ] he ne wstandard of r ev ie ww ill not

c hange th e res ul t i n t hi s ca se , bec au se th e n ew st an da rdis act ua ll y th e sa m e as th e o ne we would have used oth erw ise.”) ; United States v. Flem ing, 397 F.3d 95, 99 (2d Cir. 2005 ) (a pply ing reasonableness st andard of reviewin revocation of supervised
re le as e ca se a ft er

Bo oke r)
. W e ag re e an d r ev ie wT ur ne r’ s se nte nc e fo r
reas on ab le ne ss . In sentencing Turner, the district court consid ered that T urner: (1) had
co m m itt ed se ve ra l vi ola tio ns o f his sup er vis ed r el ea se , inc lud ing tw o m or e bank
ro bbe ri es ; ( 2) ha d apr ope nsi ty f or c om m itt ing bank r obbe ry ; ( 3) ha d r ec ei ve d a lig ht s en te nc e fo r the und er ly ing bank r obbe ry of fe nse ; and ( 4) m ay

not ha ve to
se rv e his e nti re 20- y ear state se nte nc e. F urthe r, the dis tr ic t c ourt w as a w ar e tha t i t
co uld se nte nc e T ur

ne r to a c onc ur re nt s en te nc e, but

that the non -b ind ing G uid el ine s a s to sup er

vis ed -r el ea se r ev oc at ion s r ec om m en de d ac onse cu tiv e sentence. Based on the rec ord, the district court adequately considered the § 3553 (a ) fa ct or s, a nd w e co nc lud e tha t a 24- m onth se nte nc e co nse cu tiv e to Turn er’s 2 0- y ear s ta te sen te nc e was reas on ab le . See Un it edSta te s v . Rob le s, –10

F. 3d – , 200 5 W L 108 3487 , a t *4 ( 11th C ir
. May 10, 200 5) ( statin g th at

e ve n if the de fe ndant “ w as se nte nc ed pos t- Bo oke r an d w e w er e re vie w ing f or r ea sona ble ne ss,
w e w oul d no t e xpe ct

the dis tr ic t c ourt i n e ve ry c as e to c ondu ct

a n a cc ount ing of
ev er y § 35 53( a) f

ac tor . . . a nd e xpound o n ho we ac h f ac tor play ed ar ole in its sentencing d ecision”). A cc or din gly , thi s C ourt a ff irm s T ur ne r’ s 24 -m onth f

ed er al se nte nc e to b e served consecutively

to his 20 -y ear state sentence. AFFIRMED.