FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT D e c e m be r 28, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 11762 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 3 - 0 0 1 3 9 - C R - 3 - S L B - HG D U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s R O B E R T E R I C W I L L I A M S , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( D e c e m b e r 28, 2006) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B A R K E T T an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: R ob ertE ri c W i l l i am s app ea l s the re vo ca t i on of hi s s up ervi se d rel ea se , p u r s u a n tt o 1 8 U. S . C . § 3 5 8 3 . Atth e r e v o c a t i o n h e a r i n g , Wi l l i a m s c o n c e d e d two2

vi ol a t i ons of

the c ondi t i ons of

hi s r e l e a s e , na m e l yt e s t i ng pos i t i ve f orc oc a i ne a nd fa i l i ng t o att end tw o d rug cou nsel i ng se ss i on s. O n app ea l , W i l l i am s argues that th e s e v io la tio n s , w h ic h o c c u rr e d m o n th s e a r lie r , d id n o t w a rr a n t ar e v o c a tio n o f h is supervi se d rel ea se . W i l l i am s c on t ends thatthe re vo ca t i on w as the re sul tof an o v e rb lo w n tr a f

f ic in c id e n t a n d th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s im p r o p e re m p h a s is o n h is cr i m i nal hi st ory and ori gi nal se nt enci ng . W e f i nd thatthe di stri ctcourtw as e n title d to r e v o k e h is r e le a s e o n th e b a s is o f th e s e c o n c e d e d v io la tio n s a n d to c ons i de rhi s c r i m i na l hi s t ory i n de c i di ng the l e ngth of the s e nt e nc e a nd a c c o r d in g ly , w e a f

f irm . D is c us s i on A di stri ctcourt ’ s r evocat i on of supervi se d rel ea se i s gener al l y r evi ew ed u n d e ra n ab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n s ta n d a r d . U

ni ted Stat es v. Frazi er , 26 F . 3d 110, 112 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ) . H o w e v e r , w e r e v ie w f o rp la in e rr o rth o s e is s u e s in w h ic h tim e ly o b je c tio n s w e r e n o t m a d e in th e d is tr ic t c o u rt. U ni te d State s v . O lano , 5 0 7 U . S. 725, 731, 113 S . C t . 1770, 1776, 123 L . E d. 2d 508 ( 1993) . A tthe he a r i ng, W i l l i a m s c ont e s t e d the e ve nt s s urr oundi ng hi s tr a f f i c s t op, butf

a i l e d t o c ont e s tthe d is tr ic t c o u rt’s r e lian c e o n th e d ru g v io la tio n s in d e c id in g to r e v o k e h is r e le a s e . I ns t e a d, he m e r e l y a s ke d the c ourtt o be l e ni e nt . W e w i l l the r e f or e r e vi e w the d e c is io n b e lo w f

o rp la in e rr o r .3

T o pr e va i l unde rapl a i n e rr ors t a nda r d, W i l l i a m s m us tpr ove the f ol l ow i ng: (1) there m ustbe an err or; (2) thaterror m ustbe pl ai n; and (3) i tm ustaf fe ct s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts . O lano, 5 0 7 U. S . a t7 3 2 , 1 1 3 S . C t . a t1 7 7 6 . Ad d i t i o n a l l y , we rev erse th e d eci si o n b el o w o n l y i f th e erro r “ seri o u sl y affect[s] th e fai rn ess, i n t eg ri ty, o r p u b l i c rep u t at i o n o f j u d i ci al p ro ceed i n g s. ” I d. a t736, 113 S . C t . 1779. U nd er18 U . S . C . § 3 58 3(e) , the courtm ay , “ re vo ke a t erm of supervi se d r e l e a s e , a nd r e qui r e the de f e nda ntt o s e rve i n pr i s on a l l orpa rtof the t e rm of su p erv i sed rel ease au th o ri zed b y st atu t e . . . i f th e co u rt . . . fi n d s b y a p rep o n d eran ce o f th e ev i d en ce th atth e d efen d an tv i o l at ed a co n d i t i o n o f [h i s] supervi se d rel ea se . ” 18 U . S . C . § 3 58 3(e) (3). W i l l i am s c on ce des thathe vi ol at ed the t e rm s of

hi s r e l e a s e by m i s s i ng tw o drug c ouns e l i ng s e s s i ons a nd t e s t i ng po si t i ve for c ocai ne. W i l l i am s argues thatthese vi ol at i on s w er e t ec hn i ca l i n n ature a nd abs e nta l l e ga t i ons of di s or de r l yc onduc tdur i ng atr a f f i c s t op, the yw oul d not h a v e le d to r e v o c a tio n o f h is s e n te n c e . N e v e rth e le s s , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt e x p r e s s ly s t a t e d tha ti tw a s ba s i ng i t s de c i s i on on the s e vi ol a t i ons a l one , a nd a s r e voc a t i on b a s e d o n s u c h v io la tio n s c o m p o rts w ith th e s ta tu te , it w a s n o t p la in e rr o rto d o s o . See § 3 5 8 3 . T he s t a tut e a l s o “ di r e c t s the c ourtt o c ons i de rva r i ous f a c t or s i n s e nt e nc i ng the de f e nda ntupon r e voc a t i on of s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e , i nc l udi ng the hi s t orya nd4

char ac t er i st i cs of the defendant , (a )( 1), and d et erre nce, (a )( 2)(B ). ” U ni ted Stat es v. Mo o re , 44 3 F . 3d 79 0, 79 4 (11 th C i r. 20 06 ). W e have al so no t ed that , “ the court can u se i t s di sc re t i on i n sent enci ng as l on g as i tdo es no texce ed the st atut ory m axi m um or fa l l bel ow the st atut ory m i ni m um se nt ence . ” U ni ted Stat es v. Wi l l i a ms , 42 5 F . 3d 98 7, 99 0 n . 2 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ). A cc ordi ng l y, w e f i nd thati tw as n o t p la in e rr o rf

o rth e d is tr ic t c o u rt to c o n s id e rW illia m s ’ c r im in a l h is to ryin d e c id in g th e le n g th o f

th e s e n te n c e . Mo o r e, 443 F . 3d a t794. A s w e f in d n o r e v e r s ib le e rr o r , w e a f f irm th e d e c is io n b e lo w . AF F I RME D.