[DO NOT PUBLISH]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 4 
2

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 Amendment when it admitted into evidence a laboratory report recording 

the concentration of marijuana in his blood during eight drug tests. Revere 

contends, for the first time, that the admission of the report violated 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 Revere invited the district court to admit the 

laboratory report because any error created by its admission was harmless. The 

district court was required to revoke Revere’s supervised release and sentence him 

to a term of imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g)(3), (g)(4); United States v. 

Gari, 572 F.3d 1352, 1362 (11th Cir. 2009); United States v. Sweat, 555 F.3d 1364, 

1367 (11th Cir. 2009). Revere admitted that he violated the conditions of his 

supervised release by failing 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 4 
3

The district court did not abuse its discretion by sentencing Revere to 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 take a trip after being denied permission to do 

so, tested positive for marijuana 12 times, failed to report for drug tests 8 times, 

and tested 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 furtherance 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. See 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 one year of 

imprisonment would curtail Revere’s access to marijuana. At Revere’s request, the 

district court added one day to the custodial sentence so Revere could be eligible 

for good time credit reductions.

Revere argues that the district court exceeded its authority by imposing 47 

months of supervised release in addition to the two years he had served, but 

“[section] 3583 imposes no ‘statutory maximum’ on the aggregate amount of time 

Case: 14-10286 Date Filed: 07/09/2014 Page: 3 of 4 
4

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 (11th 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 (11th Cir. 2003), and 

Revere’s terms of imprisonment and of supervised release were less than his

maximum statutory sentence of 5 years. And the district court was entitled to 

divide Revere’s sentence “between [a] prison term and supervised release as [it 

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