[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 21-12752

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSH CLEMONTE ROLLE, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 0:13-cr-60033-JAL-2

____________________

USCA11 Case: 21-12752 Date Filed: 04/12/2022 Page: 1 of 8
2 Opinion of the Court 21-12752

Before GRANT, LUCK, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Josh Rolle appeals his sentence of 27 months’ imprisonment 

imposed upon revocation of his supervised release. He argues that

his sentence is procedurally and substantively unreasonable. We 

affirm. 

I. 

Rolle, a Bahamian citizen, pleaded guilty in 2013 to conspiring to possess with intent to distribute cocaine. He was sentenced 

to 63 months in prison and five years of supervised release. As conditions of his supervised release, he was prohibited from committing another crime, required to surrender to immigration officers 

for removal after his imprisonment, and barred from reentering the 

United States without permission. 

Rolle served his term of imprisonment and was deported. 

His term of supervised release began in April 2016. Three years 

later, Rolle was found in south Florida participating in a conspiracy 

to import several hundred pounds of marijuana into the United 

States. Rolle’s probation officer filed a petition alleging that Rolle 

had violated the conditions of his supervised release by illegally 

conspiring to import marijuana into the United States and reentering the country without permission. 

Before the supervised release revocation hearing, the probation officer provided the parties with a report calculating the 

USCA11 Case: 21-12752 Date Filed: 04/12/2022 Page: 2 of 8
21-12752 Opinion of the Court 3

applicable Guidelines range as 24 to 30 months’ imprisonment, 

based on the classification of the violations under § 7B1.1(a) of the 

United States Sentencing Guidelines and Rolle’s criminal history 

category (I). The report also noted that U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f) provided that any sentence imposed on the revocation of supervised 

release shall be imposed to run consecutively to any term of imprisonment that the defendant is serving. 

At the hearing, Rolle admitted to the violations and the district court found that he had violated the terms and conditions of 

his supervised release. The government argued for a sentence of 

imprisonment within the Guidelines range, to be imposed consecutively to the sentence for the new drug offense pursuant to 

U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f). Rolle argued that the court should either impose a sentence running concurrent to his sentence for the new 

drug offense or grant a variance below the Guidelines range. The 

district court stated that it had considered the statements of the parties, “the information contained in the violation report,” and the 

sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). It stated that it considered 

a sentence “in the middle of the advisory guideline range” to be 

appropriate and sentenced Rolle to 27 months in prison, to be 

served consecutively to the sentence he was serving for the drugimportation offense. Rolle now appeals.

II. 

We generally review a sentence imposed upon revocation 

of supervised release for reasonableness, applying the deferential 

abuse-of-discretion standard. United States v. Vandergrift, 754 F.3d 

USCA11 Case: 21-12752 Date Filed: 04/12/2022 Page: 3 of 8
4 Opinion of the Court 21-12752

1303, 1307 (11th Cir. 2014). When a defendant raises an argument 

regarding the procedural reasonableness of hissentence for the first 

time on appeal, however, our review is for plain error only. Id.

III. 

A. 

Rolle first argues that his sentence was procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to calculate his Guidelines 

sentencing range at the supervised release revocation hearing. 

Rolle did not raise this objection before the district court when he 

was given the opportunity to do so; we therefore review the procedural reasonableness of his sentence for plain error. Id. Under 

the plain error standard, Rolle must show that (1) the district court 

erred; (2) the error was plain or obvious; and (3) the error affected 

his substantial rights. Id. If all three conditions are met, we may 

reverse if the error seriously affected the integrity, fairness, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id.

A district court may commit procedural error at sentencing 

if it fails to correctly calculate the applicable Guidelines range. See 

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). But Rolle has not 

shown that the district court committed that error here. Citing 

United States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179 (11th Cir. 2008), the district 

court acknowledged its duty to begin by correctly calculating the 

Guidelines range, and then to consider the parties’ arguments regarding the appropriate sentence. Although the court did not state 

on the record that it agreed with the probation officer’s proposed 

USCA11 Case: 21-12752 Date Filed: 04/12/2022 Page: 4 of 8
21-12752 Opinion of the Court 5

Guidelines calculations, it stated that it had reviewed the probation 

officer’s report, and it is apparent from the hearing transcript that 

both the parties and the district court were referring to the Guidelines range proposed in the report. Cf. Rita v. United States, 551 

U.S. 338, 351 (2007) (“The sentencing judge, as a matter of process, 

will normally begin by considering the presentence report and its 

interpretation of the Guidelines.”). 

The government argued for a sentence “within the advisory 

guidelines range”; Rolle argued for either a concurrent sentence or 

“a variance below the guideline range”; and the district court stated 

that although it had initially “considered going above the advisory 

guidelines,” defense counsel had persuaded the court “to sentence 

within the advisory guidelines” because of Rolle’s unusual acceptance of responsibility. The court ultimately determined that a 

sentence at “the mid-level of the guideline range” was appropriate, 

and its sentence of 27 months is, in fact, at the midpoint of the correct Guidelines range of 24–30 months.1 

1 Rolle argues that the district court could have made an error in its Guidelines 

calculations—for example, by assigning Rolle the wrong criminal history category—and still come up with the correct Guidelines range. Such an error is 

highly unlikely, given that the district court reviewed the probation officer’s 

report containing the correct criminal history category and Guidelines calculations and did not indicate any disagreement with the report. Rolle cannot 

meet his burden under the plain-error standard by engaging in idle speculation. 

USCA11 Case: 21-12752 Date Filed: 04/12/2022 Page: 5 of 8
6 Opinion of the Court 21-12752

For sentences imposed upon revocation of supervised release, “it is sufficient that there be some indication that the district 

court was aware of and considered the Guidelines, which requires 

the court to consider the sentencing range established under the 

Guidelines.” United States v. Campbell, 473 F.3d 1345, 1349 (11th 

Cir. 2007) (quotation marks, emphasis, and citation omitted). The 

record before us gives ample indication that the district court correctly calculated and considered the applicable Guidelines range 

before imposing Rolle’s sentence. Rolle has not shown that the 

district court committed plain error.

B. 

Rolle next argues that his 27-month sentence is substantively 

unreasonable because the district court failed to adequately consider the harshness of his incarceration during the COVID-19 pandemic, when many prison work and treatment programs are unavailable and access to the outside world is limited. He contends 

that the extended lockdowns caused by the pandemic are especially 

harsh for him because as a noncitizen, he is ineligible for certain 

time credits or for early release to a halfway house. 

A district court may abuse its discretion and impose a substantively unreasonable sentence if it fails to consider relevant factors that should be given significant weight, gives undue weight to 

an irrelevant or improper factor, or commits a clear error in judgment when balancing the relevant factors. United States v. Irey, 

612 F.3d 1160, 1189 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc). In considering the 

§ 3553(a) sentencing factors, however, the weight given to any 

USCA11 Case: 21-12752 Date Filed: 04/12/2022 Page: 6 of 8
21-12752 Opinion of the Court 7

specific factor generally is committed to the sound discretion of the 

district court. United States v. Croteau, 819 F.3d 1293, 1309 (11th 

Cir. 2016). “The party challenging the sentence bears the burden 

of showing that it is unreasonable.” United States v. Trailer, 827 

F.3d 933, 936 (11th Cir. 2016). 

Under the circumstances here, we are not persuaded that 

Rolle’s sentence was substantively unreasonable. Although the 

court did not explicitly address Rolle’s argument that the conditions of confinement during the pandemic were more harsh than 

usual, it stated that it had considered the parties arguments, along 

with the § 3553(a) sentencing factors, in determining that a 27-

month sentence was appropriate. The court was not required to 

discuss each factor that it considered, and we will not assume that 

the court ignored Rolle’s argument merely because it did not reference the argument at the hearing or in its sentencing order. See 

United States v. Amedeo, 487 F.3d 823, 832–33 (11th Cir. 2007). 

The district court explained that in considering § 3553(a)(1) 

(“the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and 

characteristics of the defendant”), the fact that Rolle had illegally 

reentered the United States for the purpose of committing the 

same kind of crime for which his original sentence was imposed

weighed in favor of a longer revocation sentence. The court also 

explained, however, that it had been persuaded in part by Rolle’s 

argument that he had demonstrated extraordinary acceptance of 

responsibility by reaching out to the Federal Defender’s office to 

set the revocation hearing and resolve the violations. The court 

USCA11 Case: 21-12752 Date Filed: 04/12/2022 Page: 7 of 8
8 Opinion of the Court 21-12752

balanced these significant factors and determined that a 27-month

sentence was appropriate. 

We cannot say that this middle-of-the-Guidelines sentence—which was also well below the statutory maximum sentence of five years in prison—represents “a clear error in judgment” 

or “lies outside the range of reasonable sentences dictated by the 

facts of the case.” Trailer, 827 F.3d at 936; see United States v. 

Muho, 978 F.3d 1212, 1227 (11th Cir. 2020) (“sentences that fall 

within the Guidelines range or that are below the statutory maximum are generally reasonable”). Rolle has not shown that the district court abused its discretion by imposing a substantively unreasonable sentence.

IV. 

 Rolle’s 27-month sentence imposed on the revocation of 

supervised release was not procedurally or substantively unreasonable. We therefore affirm.

AFFIRMED. 

USCA11 Case: 21-12752 Date Filed: 04/12/2022 Page: 8 of 8