Honora ble J ane A . Restani, Chief Judg e of the United S tates C ourt of International Trade , * sitti ngby designation. NO T RE CO MM EN DE D FO R FU LL -T EXTPU BL IC A TI ON Fi le N ame: 09a0031n .06 Fi led : Jan uar

y 15, 2009 No . 07- 5188 UNITED STA

TES COURT OF A PPE A LS FO R TH E SI XTH C IR CU IT
UN ITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Pl ain ti ff-A ppel lee , v. KELLO A M . F IELD S, Defendant -A ppel lan t. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APP EAL F RO M THE UN ITED ST AT ES DIST RICT COURT F O R THE W ESTER N DI ST RI CT OF T EN NE SSEE

Before: D AU GH TREY and KETHLE DG E, C ircui t J udg es; R ESTAN I, Ju dg e. *
PER C UR IA M. The de fendant, K ell oa Fie ld s, appeal s from the jud g ment of the dis tr ict c our

t rev oki ng the per iod of super v is ed rele ase impose d i n a p ri or cr imi nal proceed ing and impos ing a new 60- month t er m of impr is onment for the v iol ati on l eadi ng to the rev ocat ion

. Spec ific all y , F iel ds cont ends that the n ew se ntenc e, w hic h i s h ig her than the a ppl ic abl e gu id e line ra ng e, i s u nreason abl e. W e di sag re e and, therefore, aff ir m the jud g ment of the dis tr ict c our t.
FACTUA L A ND PROCEDUR A L BACKGROUNDNo. 07-5188

United States v. Fields

- 2 - W hil e s ubje ct to fiv e y ears o f super v is ed rele ase follo w ing se rv ic e of a 94- month pr is on te rm for pos ses si on w it h i ntentto dis tr ibu te c ocai ne bas e, K ell oa F iel ds w as arrested on an unrelat ed ch arge of secon d-de gree m urde r. Because one cond ition of his super v is ed rele ase re q uired th at F iel ds “n ot c ommit another federal , s tate, or

l ocal cr ime, ” the d efendant’ s p ro bati on officer req uest ed th at the super v is ed re lea se be rev oked in li g ht of the murder

ch arg e. At t he rev ocat ion hear ing , t he g ov er nment pre se n te d w it ness es w hose tes ti mony c o n n e c t e d Fi e ld s wit h a n a ggr a va t e d a s s a u lt , if n o twit h se c o n d -d e gr e e m u rd e r. T wo ind iv idu als , G ar

y Sc hoonov er

and Al ber

t R hea, tes ti fied th at t hey w ere dr iv ing tog ether on North Hollyw ood Boule v ard in Mem phis w hen they saw Field s run ning d own the sidewalk after another

i ndi v idu al w ho appe ared to be a mal e tee nag er or ch il d. At o ne poi nt du ri ng the chase , t h e smaller individual, w ho was later identif ied as 24 -y ear-old St acy Davi s, duck ed betw een tw o v ehi cl es par ked alo ng the street i n an apparent e ffort t o es cape from Fields. Eventua lly , howev er, the def end ant caught up w ith Davi s and w as seen raising his leg i n a k ic ki ng moti on to w ard D av is ’s l ow er bac k. Al thoug h nei ther Scho onov er nor R hea act ual ly saw Fiel ds’ s foot c ontact D av is , one of the w it ness es tes ti fied th at he sa w “ w hat loo ked li ke the a dul t pus hin g [D av is ] out[i nto t he s treet] w it h his foot.” Unfor tunat ely , as Dav is w as pushe d i nto t he l anes of tra ff ic , a n a u to m o b il e dr iv ing by hi t t he v icti m, k il li ng him. Bo th S choon ov er and Rhe a c lai med uneq uiv ocal ly , how ev er , that the dr iv er of that
v ehi cl e had no oppo rt uni ty w hatev er

to av oid the col li si on.No. 07-5188

United States v. Fields

- 3 - Addi ti onal ev ide nce int ro duced at the h ear ing indi cat ed that the defendant’ s a ng er at D av is resul ted from a dis ag re ement ov er m oney ow ed byDav is and Dav is ’s fianc ee to the defend antand to the defend ant ’s g irlfri en d. Furthe r info rmat ion sup plied th rough police repo rts conf irmed thatFields had atta cked Dav is prior to cha sing him down the side w alk and t hat the defendant “s lap ped [D av is ] and then re peatedl y punc hed hi m in the sto mach. Then threw

hi m on t he g ro und and st arted k ic ki ng hi m in the face, s tomach , and the head.” Fi eld s d id not d is pute that he and Da v is foug ht ov er an u npai d debt

or thathe c hased Davi s down the street . He insisted, ho w ever, that he did not push or kick Davi s into traf f ic but, ins tead, thatD av is , of hi s o w n v oli ti on, ran i nto t he s treet t o e sc ape from the defendant. In ruling upon the revocati o n r equest, the district judge po inted out th e serious,
v ic iou s n ature of the cr ime that inv olv ed an attac k b y F iel ds, a 250-pound man, upon a mental ly -c hal len g ed, 1 25- pound man w ho w as suc h s li g ht bu il d tha t w it ness es thoug ht he wa s a ch il d o r a t e e n a ge r. T h e d is t ri c tju d ge a ls o d is c u s s e d t h e n e e d t o p ro t e c tso c ie t y, the nee d t o d e t e r ot her pe rsons f rom co mm itting cri me s, and the ne ed to provi de just puni shmentfor a n ind iv idu al w ho cal lou sl y v iol ated the s uper

v is ed rele ase prohi bit ion on commi ss ion of addi ti onal cr imes

. Fi nal ly , w hen di sc uss ing con si derati on of the re lev ant g uid eli ne s entenc ing rang e, t he di str ict c our t s tated : In t his case, the g uid eli ne rang e is low er than the [st atuto ry] max imum, but iti s s ubst anti al, and itm ig ht cons ti tute an appropr iat e s entenc e i n the ca se. T he guide line range in the case is 27-3 3 mo nth s. W e also want to avoid in any si tuati on unw ar ra nted sent enci ng di spar ity w h e n w e’re s entenc ingNo. 07-5188

United States v. Fields

- 4 - ind iv idu als

. Those are al l thi ng s t hat t he c our t s houl d c onsi der

. It w oul d be hard t o c o n te m pla te an y ca se that is more appropr iat e for a hi g h end sent ence. Ev en the admi tted facts are di stu rb ing , extremely di stu rb ing

. The facts that are s omew hat c ontes ted, but n ot c ontes ted i n t h is c ase w it h any credi ble proof

a re ev en more di stu rb ing

. This i s a ca se w here the a p p ro p ri a t e s e n t e n c e i s , i n fa c t , f ive ye a rs i n c a rc e ra t io n in a fe d e ra l fa c il it y. So w hat w e w il l do i n thi s c ase is ente r a j udg ment t o tha t effect. * * * * * I have c o n s idered w het her it shou ld be, for example , 33 m ont hs, plu s a per iod of addi ti onal su per v is ion bec ause that is wha t I w as cons ide ri ng as the a lt er nati v e, an d w hether thatmig ht be mor e c o n st ructi v e, t hat’ s w hat I w as debati ng , fran kl y . And i n my min d, i f I – ithas some appeal , t he probl em is the g ra v ity

of the o ffense condu ct.

DI SC US SION
Before thi s c our

t, Fi eld s d oes not c hal len g e the act ual rev ocat ion of his su per v is ed re lea se follo w ing hi s a rrestfor s econd -d eg re e murder

. Indeed, secti on 7B1 .3( a) (1 ) of the Uni ted S tates Sent enci ng Gui del ine s mand ates that“ [u]po n a fin din g of a G ra d e A

. . . v iol ati on [( a federal , s tate, or l ocal offense that is a c ri me of v iol ence and i s p uni shabl e by a ter m of impr is onment exce e d in g o ne y ear )] , t he c our t shall rev oke probati on or super v is ed rele ase. ” ( Emphasi s a dded.) I nst ead, Fi eld s c ontends onl y thatt h e pr is on sent ence impos ed upon hi m after suc h re v ocat ion shoul d hav e been a sent ence w it hin the appl ic abl e g uid eli ne rang e rather than a p ris o n t e rm eq ual to the s tatut or y max imum puni shment

. Upo n findi ng , by

a preponderance of t he ev ide nce, thata de fendant has v iol ated a cond ition of

supe rv ised relea se, a cou rt may revoke tha t supe rv ised relea se “and requireNo. 07-5188

United States v. Fields

- 5 - the d efendant to se rv e i n pr is on al l or par t of the ter m of super

v is ed rele ase author iz ed by sta tute for th e offense that re sul ted i n s u ch t er m of super v is ed rele ase w it hout credi t for time previ ously serv ed o n po strelea se sup erv ision.” 18 U.S.C. § 3 583 (e)(3). Thu s, beca use th e district court originally sente nced Fields to f iv e y ears o f supe rv ised relea se after ser v ic e of hi s pr is on sent ence for poss ess ion w it h int ent to dis tr ibu te c ra ck co cai ne, in re v o k i n g t h e d e fe n d a n t ’ s s u p e r v i s e d re l e a s e , t h e c o u rt w a s s t a t u t o r i l y a u t h o r i z ed to impos e an addi ti onal pr is on te rm of up to fiv e y ears. Acc ordin g to the rele v ant s entenc ing guidelines, howev er, the range of imp risonm entapp licable to a criminal histo ry category II offender

w ho w as on s uper

v is ed rele ase as a resul t of a C las s A felony and w ho c o mm i t t e d a G ra d e A

v i o l a t i o n i s o n l y

2 7 - 3 3 months

. See U .S.S .G. § 7B 1.4( a) (2 ). The defendant i nsi sts thatco nsi derati on of the sent enci ng factors l is ted i n 18 U. S.C . § 3583( e) suppo rt s a se ntenc e w it hin that gui del ine rang e and that the 60- month s entenc e i mposed by the dis tr ict c our

t i s t hus unreason abl e. W e rev iew

se ntenc es impos ed foll ow ing the re v ocat ion of super v is ed rele ase in the same man ner

thatw e rev iew

othe r sent ences i n the after math of the Uni ted S tates Supreme C our

t’ s o pin ion i n United S tates v. Book er , 543 U. S. 220 (2 005)

. See Un ited States v. Bolds , 511 F .3d 5 68, 5 75 ( 6th C ir . 200 7)

. Con seq uentl y , w e apply “ a defere nti al abuse of dis cretion s ta n dard for re asona ble ness ” to t he di str ict c our t’ s s entenc ing deter minat ion

. See id. ( ci tati ons and i nter nal q uotat ion mar ks omi tted)

.No. 07-5188

United States v. Fields

- 6 - Pursuantto the e x pli ci t t er ms of § 3 5 8 3( e) , a dis tr ict c our t may se ntenc e a super v is ed rele ase v iol ator

to an addi ti onal pr is on ter m “a fter cons ide ri ng the factors s et forth in secti on 3553 (a )( 1) , ( a) (2 )( B) , (a) (2 )( C) , (a) (2 )( D) , (a) (4 ), (a) (5 ), (a) (6 ), and (a) (7 ). ” In t his ca se, the dis tr ict j udg e cl ear ly cons ide re d suc h factors a nd, a lt houg h notreferenc ing each del ine ated subs ect ion of 18 U .S.C

. § 3553( a) , did c omment upon : (1 ) the n ature and ci rc umstan ces of the o ffense, i ncl udi ng the “g re at di spar ity in si z e” betw een t he defendant a n d t h e vi cti m; ( 2) the his tor y and charact er is ti cs of the d efendant, e mphasi z ing that Fields’s criminal con ductw as no t abe rrant beh avior butsim ply ano the r exam ple of Fields’s inab ility to f ulf ill his societa l responsib ilities; (3) the nee d to pro tect society, deter oth ers from cr ime, and impos e a j ustpuni shmentw hen t here i s “ re peated condu ct inv olv ing criminal act iv ity ”; (4) the possibility of imp osing add itiona l conditio ns of release a nd e xtra re habi li tati v e ac ti v ity ; and ( 5) the av oid ance of unw ar ra nted sente n cin g d ispar it ies

. Of course, “ [t] here i s no req uirement . . . t hat a di str ict c our t eng ag e i n a r it ual is ti c i ncant ati on to est ablish co nside ration of a legal i ssue. Nor is th ere a requireme nt th at a district cou rt ma ke spe cif ic fin dings relating to each of the facto rs considere d.” United State s v. Mc Clell an , 164 F.3d 30 8, 31 0 (6th Cir. 199 9 ) (citatio ns an d inte rnal quotat ion m arks
om itted ).
Ne verthe les s, a s entenc ing co urt mus t s ti ll “ prov ide at lea st an i ndi cat ion of it s reaso ns for im posin g a sent ence t hate x ceed ed the reco mm end ed se nte ncing range.” Id. On a ppeal , F iel ds does not s ug g estthatno s uch ex pla nati on w as offered. Ins tead, he co n te n d s that re ferenc e to the a ppl ic abl e s ect ion 3553( a) factors w as “i ll usor y and notNo. 07-5188

United States v. Fields

- 7 - act ual ” and t hat t he s entenc ing co urt g av e “ undue w eig ht to the deta il s o f the new cr imi nal of fense ,” a facto r not me ntion ed in 18 U.S.C. § 358 3(e)’s list of sente ncing conside ration s. W it hout q uest ion , s ect ion 3583( e) does not li st a m o n g the factors t hat may be cons ide re d i n resent enci ng after rev ocat ion of super

v is ed rele ase thos e ev alu ati ons ide nti fied i n 18 U. S.C . § 3553( a) (2 )( A) – “ the n eed for the sent ence impos ed to reflectthe ser iou snes s o f the offense, to promote respect for the l aw , and to prov ide j ustpuni shment for th e offense. ” In United State s v. Lew

is , 498 F .3d 3 93, 3 99- 4 0 0 ( 6th C ir . 200 7) , cer t. denied , 129 S.C t. 43 ( 2008) , how ev er , t he Si xth C ircui t hel d “ tha t it d oes not c onst it ute re v ersi ble er ro r to c onsi der § 35 53( a) (2 )( A) w hen i mposi ng a s e n te n ce for v iol ati on of su p e r v i s e d re l e a s e , e v e n t h o u g h t h i s fa c t o r i s n o t e n u me ra t e d i n § 3 5 8 3 ( e )

. ” In maki ng that deter minat ion , t he c our t s tated : Fi rs t of all , § 3583( e) prov ide s merel y that the c our t “ may , after

co nsi der ing the [ spec ified ] facto rs . . . rev oke a term of s uper v is ed rele ase. ” Itdoes not state thata court m ay rev oke su pervised release af ter “ only co nsi der ing ” the enu m e ra t ed facto rs. Second , the three co nside ration s in § 355 3(a)(2)(A), namely the need “ to reflectthe ser iou snes s o f the offense, ” “t o promote respe ct for the law,” a n d “ t o provi de justpun ishm entfor the o f fense ,” are ess enti all y

redundantw it h matt ers c our ts are already per mitt ed to tak e i nto cons ide ra ti on w hen i mposi ng se ntenc es for v iol ati ons of super v is ed rele ase. Id. at 400.
The di str ict c our

t’ s s entenc ing dete rmi nat io n thu s e ntai led co nsi derati on of appropr iat e s tatut or

y factors. In li g ht of t hose factors, espec ial ly the specter

of a s ix -foottw o- inc h, 25 0- pound d efendant v ic iou sl y as saul ti ng a f ive- foot-four-i nch, 125- pound,No. 07-5188

United States v. Fields

- 8 - mental ly -h andi cappe d i ndi v idu al ov er a monetar y debt, chas ing the smal ler man dow n the street, and t hen propel li ng hi m int o oncoming traff ic , the 60-month sent ence impos ed by the d is tr ict j u dg e i s a t l eastreason abl e. Con seq uentl y , ac cordin g thatse ntenc ing deter minat ion the deferenc e to w hic h i t i s d ue, the dis tr ict c our t di d notabus e i ts dis creti on in impo sing the challen ged sent ence upo n Fields.
CO NC LU SION
For the re asons se t outabov e, w e AF FI RM the jud g ment of the dis tr ict c our t.