FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T OCT 20, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]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 77 0 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock et No. 2 :0 2- cr-0 04 06 -J HH-PWG -1

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Plai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,

ver su s KELVIN PRINCE,

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 Nor th ern Dis tri ct of Al ab am a

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Oct ob er 2 0, 2 01 0)

Befo re BARKETT, HULL and MARCUS , Cir cu it Ju dg es

. PER CURI AM:

Kelv in Pri nc e ap pe al s h i s 24 -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 rel eas e. O n a pp eal , Pri nc e arg ue s th at hi sse nt en ce is un reas on ab le be cau se th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in di sr eg ard in g th e Ch ap te r

Sev en Gui de li ne ran ge an d in no t co ns id eri ng th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s. Afte r th or ou gh

rev ie w, we affi rm

. W e rev ie w t he di st ric t co ur t’s u l t i mate se nt en ce im po se d up on rev oc at io n of

su pe rv i s e d r e l eas e fo r reas on ab le ne ss

. Uni te d St at es v. Sweet in g, 43 7 F.3 d 11 05 , 11 06 -0 7 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6)

.
In r e v i ewin 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 , 5 15 F.3 d 11 79 , 1 19 0 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 08 ). Fi rs t, we m us t “ ‘en s u r e t h 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, s u 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 ran ge , tre at in g th e Gui de li ne s as

m an da to ry , fai li ng to co ns id er th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s, se le ct in g a s e n t e n c e ba se d on
cl ea r l y e r r o n eo us 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 , 5 52 U.S. 3 8, 51 (2 00 7) ). The d is tri ct co ur t ne ed no t di sc us s 1

each § 35 53 (a) fact or

. Uni te d Stat es v. Talle y , 43 1 F.3 d 78 4, 78 6 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 05 ).

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).

2Rat 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 deci si on m ak in g a ut ho rit y .” Rit a v . Uni te d S ta te s, 5 51 U.S. 33 8, 35 6. (2 00 7)

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 ne ss of th e se nt en ce im po se d u n d er 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 (qu ot in g 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 rm in e “ whe th er th e se nt en ce im po se d by th e di st ric t co u r t f a i l s 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.3 d at 78 8. “ The weig ht to be acco rd ed an y gi ve n § 35 53 (a) fact or is a m at te r co m m it te d to th e so un d

di sc ret io n o f th e d is tri ct co ur t, an d we wi ll no t su bs ti tu te ou r jud gm en t in weig hi ng
th e rel ev an t fact or s.” Uni te d Stat es v. Am ed eo , 48 7 F.3 d 82 3, 83 2 (11 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n an d br ack et s om it te d)

. W e wil l rem an d fo r res en te nc in g on ly i f

we are “ le ft with th e de fin it e an d firm co nv ic ti on th at th e di st ric t cou rt com m it te d a

cl ear erro r of jud gm en t i n w e i gh in g th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s by arri vi ng at a se nt en ce
th at li es ou ts id e th e ran ge of reas on ab le se nt en ces di ct at ed by th e fact s of th e cas e.”

Pu gh , 5 15 F.3d at 11 91 (ci ta ti on an d in te rn al qu ot at io n om it te d)

. The bu rd en is on

3th e d efen da nt to sh ow t ha t t he sen te nc e was un reas on ab le in li gh t of t he reco rd an d

th e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s. Tal le y , 43 1 F .3d at 7 88

. Pri nc e ha s n o t e st ab li sh ed th at hi s se nt en ce is pr oc ed ur al ly or su bs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le

. As th e reco rd sh o w s , t h e d is tri ct co ur t co rrec tl y cal cu la te d Pri nc e’s

Ch ap te r 7 se nt en ci ng ran ge as 8 to 14 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t, whi ch Pri nc e do es no t
di sp ut e on ap pe al , b as ed o n h i s o rig in al se nt en ci ng cri m in al hi st or y cat eg or y of VI

an d a Grad e C sup erv is ed rel eas e vi ol at io n. See U.S.S.G. §§ 7 B1 .1(a )(3 ), 7B 1.4 (a) (ta bl e). Pri nc e’s 24 -m on th se nt en ce di d no t ex ceed th e 24 -m on th st at ut or y m ax im um
fo r hi s un de rlyin g Cl as s C fel on y

. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 92 2( g) (1 ), 35 83 (e)( 3)

. Alt ho ug h

Pri nc e’s se nt en ce ex ceed ed th e ad vi so ry se nt en ci ng r a ng e se t ou t in th e Ch ap te r 7

po li cy st at em en ts , t he di st ric t co ur t was no t req ui red t o s e n t e nc e Pri nc e wit hi n th at

ran ge

. See Uni te d St at es v. Si lv a, 44 3 F.3 d 79 5, 79 9 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 06 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th at

th e reco m m en de d ran ge s are adv is or y an d th at th e co ur t, whil e req ui red to co ns id er
th e ran ge s, is no t bo un d b y th em ). Here, th e d is tri ct 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.
Fu rth er, the co ur t exp li ci tl y sa id th at it ha d con si de red th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s. Sp eci fic al ly, th e co ur t co ns id ered Pri nc e’s “ ve ry di st ur bi ng cri m in al hi st or y ,” whi ch

refl ect ed Pri nc e’s hi st or y an d ch arac te ris ti cs as well as th e ne ed to pr ot ect th e pu bl ic

4fro m fu rth er cri m es fro m hi m

. See 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a)( 1) , (a)( 2) (C). In ad di ti on , th e

di st ric t co ur t ho pe d th at th is 24 -m ont h se nten ce wou ld ge t Pri nc e’s “ at te nt io n,” whi ch

wou ld de te r Pri nc e f

r o m c o m m it ti ng cri m in al act s in th e fu tu re. See 18 U.S.C. §

35 53 (a)( 2) (B).

Fi na ll y , no th in g in t he reco rd su gg es ts th at th e di st ric t co ur t im pe rm is si bl y

co ns id ered th e al le ge d vi ol en t ro bb ery an d bu rg la ry co nt ai ne d i n t h e or ig in al

re v o c a t i o n pe ti ti on

. Fo r st art ers , th e al le ga ti on was de le te d fro m th e rev oc at io n

pe ti ti on

. Mo reo ve r, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t di sc us s th is al le ga ti on be fo re rev ok in g
Pri nc e’s su pe rv is ed rel eas e o r im po si ng sen te nc e.
Bec au se Pri nc e ha s no t es ta bl is he d th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n
in im po si ng hi s 2 4- m on th ab ov e-g ui de li ne sen te nc e, we affi rm

. AFFIRMED.

5