[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 18

- 11166 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:13

- cr - 00046

- RWS

- LTW

- 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus MARQUISE MURPHY, Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________ ( October 17, 2018 )

Before TJOFLAT , BRANCH and BLACK , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 18-11166 Date Filed: 10/17/2018 Page: 1 of 42 Marquise Murphy appeals the substantive reasonableness of his sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment, imposed within the applicable G uideline s range, following the revocation of his supervised release. Murphy a sserts the district
court abused its discretion by inadequately weighing th e 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and, consequently, impos ing a sentence greater than necessary to comply with § 3553(a)’s purposes. After review, 1 we affirm Murphy’s sentence. If a district court finds that a defendant violated a condition of his supervised release, the court may revoke the supervised release and impose a prison term. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). In imposing imprisonment upon revocation of supervised release, the cour t must consider certain factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). United States v. Sweeting , 437 F.3d 1105, 1107 (11th Cir. 2006). These factors include : the nature and circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant, the n eed to deter criminal co nduct and protect the public, the applicable G uidelines range, the pertinent policy statements of the Sentencing Commission, and the need to avoid unw arranted sentencing disparities . 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). First, neither the record nor Murphy’s brief raises any procedural reasonableness issues with the district court’s sentence. United States v. Tome , 611 F.3d 1371, 1378 (11th Cir. 2010) (explaining w hen reviewing a sentence’s

1 We review a sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release for reasonableness. United States v. Vandergrift , 754 F.3d 1303, 1307 (11th Cir. 2014).

Case: 18-11166 Date Filed: 10/17/2018 Page: 2 of 43 reasonableness, we first look at whether the district court committed any significant procedural error )

. The district court adequately explained that it reached its sentencing decision based on Murphy’s history and on the nature of Murphy’s offenses. See United States v. Trailer , 827 F.3d 933, 936 (11th Cir. 2016) (stating a district court’s sentence is procedurally unreasonable if, among other things, the court treated the Guidelines as mandatory, failed to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors , or failed to adequately explain the sentence )

. Second, Murphy’s sentence is substantively reasonable. The court state d it considered the effect Murphy’s homelessness had on his ability to comply with the terms and conditions of his supervised release, b ut it also noted that mitigating factor was outweighed by Murphy’s repeated offenses and disregard for housing opportunities. The record also shows the court considered the time Mur phy served
in a county detention center for his failure to register as a s ex offender. Indeed, the district court indicated that, but for Murphy’s time served, it would have imposed a greater sentence. Murphy failed to show the district court committed a clear error of judgment in its weighing of the § 3553(a) factors. See U nited States v. Irey , 612 F.3d 1160, 1186 (11th Cir. 2010) ( en banc ) ( explaining we vacate a sentence only if “ left with the definite and firm conviction that the district court committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the § 3553(a) factors by arriving at a sentence that lies outside the range of reasonable sentences dictated by the facts of the

Case: 18-11166 Date Filed: 10/17/2018 Page: 3 of 44 case ” )

. Fur ther, Murphy’s sentence was within the applicable Guidelines range.
See United States v. Nagel , 835 F.3d 1371, 1377 (11th Cir. 2016) (stating we ordinarily expect a sentence within the G uideline s range is reasonable )

. The record demonstrates the district court considered the proper § 3553(a) factors and weighed those factors in a way that did not result in a clear error of judgment. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFI R MED. Case: 18-11166 Date Filed: 10/17/2018 Page: 4 of 4