FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T APRI L11, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U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- 13 37 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :9 4- cr-0 06 92 -KMM -3 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,

ve rs us RIGOBERTO MONTEAGUDO, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ap ril 11 , 20 11 ) Befo re HULL, MARTIN an d B LACK, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:Ri go be rto Mo nt eag ud o app eal s h is 24 -m on th ab ov e-Gu id el in es sen te nc e

im po se d fo r vi ol at in g t he co nd it io ns of h is supe rv is edrel eas e. Mo nt eag ud o as se rts two is su es on ap pe al , whi ch we ad dr es s i n turn. Aft er ca refu l re vi ew, we affi rm Mo nt eag ud o’s s en te nc e. I. Mo nt eag ud o fi rs t as se rts hi s s en te nc e is un reas on ab le . He arg ue s h is se nt en ce i s p ro cedur al ly unr eas on ab le be cau se th e rec or d d oe s n otsupp ort the se nt en ce, an d t he di st ric t co urt d idno t ad equa te ly exp la in why itim po se d a se nt en ce ab ov e th e Gui de li ne s ra ng e. Mo nt eag ud o c la im s h is sen te nc e is subs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le be cau se hi s v io la ti on s re su lt edfro m hi s dru g a dd ic ti on , an d t he sen te nc e d oe s n otall ow fo r drug -ad di ct io n t reatm en t. A sen te nc e im

po se d upo n t he rev oc at io n o f supe rv is edrel eas e is rev ie wed fo r rea so nabl en es s. Uni te d Sta tes v. S wee ti ng , 43 7 F .3d11 05 , 11 06 -0 7 (1 1t h C ir. 1 20 06 ). Furth er, “ [w]e revi ew a d is tri ctco urt’s d eci si on to ex ceedth e Ch ap te r 7 reco m m en de d g ui de li ne s ra ng e fo r anab us e o f di sc ret io n.” U.S. v. Silva , 44 3 F .3d 79 5, 7 98 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). “Rea sonablene ss reviewis akin to the defe rential a buse-of -discre tion standard.” Gall v. 1 United States , 552 U.S. 38 (2007). The Gover nment contends Montea gudo’s proc edura l rea sonablene ss arguments are subject to plain error re view bec ause he did not raise these arguments befor e the district cour t. We decline to dec ide whethe r plain er ror r eview w ould apply in this claim, because , as explained below, Montea gudo’s sentenc e is proce durally rea sonable under both standa

rds of re view. 2The re were no pro cedur al erro rs in Mo nt eag ud o’s s en te nc e. Altho ug h we

are u nabl e to de te rm in e fro m th e rec or d wh ethe r Mo nt eag ud o’s s up erv is edrel eas e was rev ok edun de r § 3 58 3( g) or § 35 83 (e), we co nc lu de th e d is tri ctco urt su ffi ci en tl y

ad dr es se d the § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s i n s en te nc in g M on te ag ud o. Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Br ow n , 22 4 F .3d12 37 , 12 41 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ) (h ol di ng th at m an da to ry

rev oc at io n o f supe rv is edrel eas e un de r 18 U.S.C. § 3 58 3( g) do es no t requi re co ns id erat io n o f th e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s i n s en te nc in g) . Spe ci fic al ly, th e co urt co ns id eredMo nt eag ud o’s h is to ry an d c ha ract eri st ic s, n ot in g t ha t h e was gr an te d a n o pp ortu ni ty after h is fir strev oc at io n h eari ng to see k d ru g re habi li ta ti on tre at m en t an d fa il edto st ay dru g fr ee. Furth er, the co urt co ns id ered

2 Mo nt eag ud o’s ar gu m en ts for a Gui de li ne s- ran ge sen te nc e, an d t he sev eri ty and na tu re o f th e v io la ti on s. Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. S co tt , 42 6 F .3d13 24 , 13 29 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (h ol di ng th atth e d is tri ctco urt’s co ns id erat io n o f a d efen da nt ’s arg um en ts an d t he 35 53 (a) fa ct or s i s s uf fic ie nt ). Last ly, th e d is tri ctco urt ap pr op ria te ly co ns id eredth e Gui de li ne s ra ng e whe n i t n ot edth ata se nt en ce ab ov e th e Gui de li ne s was ne ces sa ry to res po ndto Mo nt eag ud o’s n um ero us supe rv is ed rel eas e v io la ti on s. Se e Si lv a , 44 3 F .3dat 7 99 (ho ld in g t ha t the di st ric t co urt d id Monteagudo has violated his supervise d rele ase te rm two times within 18 months of 2 completinga 13-year

prison term. 3no t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n i m po si ng a 24 -m on th sen te nc e fo r a p ro ba ti on vi ol at io n, de sp it e anadvi so ry

ran ge of 3 to 9 m on th s, b ecau se th e p ol ic y st at em en ts in Ch ap te r 7 we re n otbi nd in g o n t he co urt an d the up wardvaria nc e was ne ces sa ry to pu ni sh m ul ti pl e v io la ti on s) . Mo nt eag ud o’s s en te nc e was subs tant iv el y reas on ab le in li gh t o f th e § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s an d t he to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces . Se e Gal l v. Un it ed St at es , 55 2 U.S. 3 8, 5 1 (2 00 7) . The co urt co ns id eredMo nt eag ud o’s p rio r fai le d tre at m en t an d t he sev eri ty andna tu re o f hi s v io la ti on s o f supe rv is edrel eas e. Des pi te Mo nt eag ud o’s cl ai m th atco nt inue d d ru g t reat m en t wo ul d b e a b et te r al te rn at iv e to in carc erat io n, t he reco rdsh ows th atdru g t reat m en t h as rep eat ed ly fai le d i n t he pa st . Thu s, we d o n otfin d a n abu se of d is cret io n und er the ci rcu m st an ces inth is cas e. II. Mo nt eag ud o n ex t as se rts 18 U.S.C. § 3 58 3( h) vi ol at es hi s Fi fth Am en dm en t rig htto du e p ro ces s b ecau se itall ows th e co urt t o i nd efi ni te ly ext en d t he te rm in at io n d at e o f hi s 1 99 5 s en te nc e. Mo nt eag ud o c on te nd s t hi s cycle o f rel eas e an d re vo cat io n c anco nt in ue th ro ug ho uthi s l ife ti m e, parti cu la rly becaus e h e is an ad di ctan d wi ll vi ol at e th e te rm s o f hi s s up erv is edrel eas e in th e fu tu re. Mo nt eag ud o fa il edto ob

ject o n t hi s b as is in th e d is tri ctco urt.

4W e rev ie w con st itut io na l i ss ue s d e n ov o, b utwil l re ve rs e o nl y forpl ai n erro r if th e d efen da ntfai le d t o o bjec t i n t he di st ric t co urt. Uni te d Sta tes v. N as h , 43 8 F .3d13 02 , 13 04 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). In o rd er fo r anerro r to be pl ai n, i t m us t b e ob vi ou s o r cl ear und er curren t l aw. Uni te d Sta tes v. Will ia ms , 46 9 F .3d96 3, 9 66 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) . Eve n a ss um in g t ha t M on te ag ud o c ou ldsh ow t ha t the th reatof afutur e due pr oc es s v io la ti on was n otto o s pe cu la ti ve , hi s ch al le ng e d oe s n otsat is fy th e pl ai n- erro r te stbe cau se ne it he r th e Supr em e Co urt n orth is Co urt h as he ldth e po te nt ia l ap pl ic at io n o f § 3 58 3( h) to futur e supe rv is edrel eas e v io la ti on s co ns ti tu te s a v io la ti on of t he Fif th Am en dm en t. Se e W

il li ams , 46 9 F .3dat 9 66 . Acco rd in gl y , Mo nt eag ud o’s s en te nc e is affi rm ed . AFFIRMED.

5