[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 14

- 10286 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:03

- cr - 00155

- CAP

- ECS

- 9

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus DEMETRIUS REVERE, a.k.a. Top Cat, Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________ (July 9, 2014) Before HULL , MARCUS and PRYOR , Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

Case: 14-10286 Date Filed: 07/09/2014 Page: 1 of 42 Demetrius Revere appeals the revocation of his supervised release and his sentence of one year and one day in prison, followed by 47 months of supervised release

. Revere argues that the district court violated his right to due process under the Fifth A mendment when it admitted into evidence a laboratory report recording the concentration of marijuana in his blood during eight drug test s . Revere contends , for the first time, that the admission of the report violat ed his right of confrontation under the Sixth Amendment and the procedures governing revocation proceedings in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1

. Revere also challenges the reasonableness of his sentence. The government responds that any error caused by admission of the report was invited and harmless, and Revere ’s sentence is reasonable. We affirm. We need not decide whether R evere invited the district court to admit the laboratory report because any error created by i t s admission was harmless. T he district court was required to revoke Revere ’s supervised release and sentence him to a term of i mprisonment

. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g)(3), (g)(4); United States v.
Gari , 572 F.3d 1352 , 1362 ( 11 th Cir

. 2009 ); United States v. Sweat , 555 F.3d 1364 , 1367 ( 11 th Cir. 2009 ). Revere admi tted t hat he violated the conditions of his supervised release by fail ing to report for drug testing and by testing positive for marijuana more than three times in one year

.

Case: 14-10286 Date Filed: 07/09/2014 Page: 2 of 43 The district court did not abuse its discretion by s entencing Revere t o a custodial sentence of one year and one day

. The district court twice modified the conditions of Revere ’s supervised release after he failed drug tests, refused to attend counseling, failed to report for drug testing, and tampered with a urine sample. After Revere proceeded to t a k e a trip after being denied permission to do

so, tested positive for marijuana 12 times, failed to report for drug tests 8 times, and test ed positive for opiates, the district court was required to revoke his supervised release and sentence him to a term of imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g) (3), (g) (4). Revere , who had committed a class A offense by attempting to commit a murder in furt herance of a conspiracy to engage in a racketeering activity , faced a maximum sentence of five years of imprisonment following the revocation of his supervised release. S ee id. §§ 1963(a), 3559(a)(1), 3583(b)(1). The district court considered the sentencing factors, see id. § 3553(a), although it was not required to do so, see id. § 3583(g) , and determined that o ne year of imprisonment w ould curtail Revere’s access to marijuana. At Revere’s request, the district court added one day to t h e custodial sentence so Revere could be eligible for good time credit reductions

. R evere argues that the district court exceeded its authority by imposing 47 months of supervised release in addition to the two years he ha d serv ed , but “[section] 3583 imposes no ‘statutory maximum’ on the aggregate amount of time

Case: 14-10286 Date Filed: 07/09/2014 Page: 3 of 44 a defendant may be required to serve on supervised release for multiple violations of the conditions of supervised release ,” United States v. Gresham , 325 F.3d 1262 , 1268 ( 11 th Cir

. 2003 ). “[T ] he length of additional supervised release and prison term upon revocation is

. . . [ limited only ] by the . . . term of supervised release [that can be imposed for] . . . the class of felony of which the appellant is convicted , ” United States v. Pla , 345 F.3d 1312, 1315 (11 th Cir

. 2003) , and
Revere ’s terms of imprisonment and of supervised release w ere less than his maximum statutory sentence of 5 year s . And t he district court was entitled to divide Revere’s sentence “ between [a] prison term and supe rvised release as [i t saw] fit. ” Id. Revere’s sentence is reasonable.
We AFFIRM the revocation of Revere’s supervised release and his
sentence. Case: 14-10286 Date Filed: 07/09/2014 Page: 4 of 4