[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-11572

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

STEVEN WESLEY GRANDISON, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Alabama

D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cr-00071-KD-C-1

____________________

USCA11 Case: 22-11572 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 05/04/2023 Page: 1 of 12
2 Opinion of the Court 22-11572

____________________

No. 22-13653

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

STEVEN WESLEY GRANDISON, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Alabama

D.C. Docket No. 1:07-cr-00037-KD-B-1

____________________

Before WILSON, BRANCH, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

In this consolidated appeal, Steven Grandison challenges his

concurrent sentences of 36 months’ imprisonment following the 

revocation of his supervised release in two cases (Case No. 

USCA11 Case: 22-11572 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 05/04/2023 Page: 2 of 12
22-11572 Opinion of the Court 3

1:07-cr-00037 and Case No. 1:10-cr-00071).1 He argues that the 

above-guidelines sentence is substantively unreasonable because 

the district court failed to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 

sentencing factors and focused exclusively on Grandison’s 

recidivism risk. After review, we affirm.

1 The government argues that we should dismiss Grandison’s appeal with 

respect to the judgment in Case No. 1:07-cr-00037 because Grandison failed to 

timely file a notice of appeal in that case, and the notice of appeal that he filed 

in Case No. 1:10-cr-00071 does not evince a clear intent to also appeal the 

judgment in Case No. 1:07-cr-00037. We disagree. Even though the district 

court entered a separate judgment in both cases, we cannot ignore that it 

addressed both cases in a single revocation hearing and made no distinction 

between the cases, except to say that the sentences in each case were to run 

concurrently. And the identical judgments in both cases were entered on the 

same day. Although Grandison’s notice of appeal only listed Case No. 1:10-cr00071, it also stated that he was appealing “from the Judgment entered 

revoking the Defendant’s [s]upervised release on April 26, 2022.” When 

viewed as a whole and in light of the totality of the circumstances, there is no 

genuine doubt as to the judgments being appealed, and dismissal is not 

warranted. See Becker v. Montgomery, 532 U.S. 757, 767 (2001) (“Imperfections 

in noticing an appeal should not be fatal where no genuine doubt exists about 

who is appealing, from what judgment, to which appellate court.”); United 

States v. Grant, 256 F.3d 1146, 1151 (11th Cir. 2001) (holding under nearly 

identical circumstances that a notice to appeal that referenced only one case 

number evinced an intent to appeal in both cases because it referenced the 

single judgment entered following a consolidated hearing); see also Hill v. 

Bellsouth Telecomms., Inc., 364 F.3d 1308, 1313 (11th Cir. 2004) (explaining that 

we “embrace[] ‘a policy of liberal construction of notices of appeal’ when 

(1) unnoticed claims or issues are inextricably intertwined with noticed ones 

and (2) the adverse party is not prejudiced” (quotation omitted)). 

USCA11 Case: 22-11572 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 05/04/2023 Page: 3 of 12
4 Opinion of the Court 22-11572

I. Background

In 2007, Grandison pleaded guilty to bank fraud in the 

Southern District of Alabama, and the district court sentenced him 

to 30 months’ imprisonment, to be followed by five years of 

supervised release. His supervision commenced in April 2009. In 

January 2010, the district court revoked his supervised release upon 

finding that Grandison violated its terms by (1) failing to follow his 

probation officer’s instructions not to engage in the purchase and 

resale of automobiles, (2) committing a new crime (bank fraud), (3) 

failing to attend drug treatment and counseling, and (4) failing to 

make required restitution payments. The district court sentenced 

him to 24 months’ imprisonment to be followed by 36 months’ 

supervised release. 

In a separate proceeding later in 2010, Grandison pleaded 

guilty to a new count of bank fraud and was sentenced to 33 

months’ imprisonment to be followed by five years’ supervised 

release, which was set to run consecutively to the revocation 

sentence in his 2007 case. 

Thereafter, in 2015, in both cases, Grandison admitted to, 

among other violations, committing a new criminal offense in 

violation of the terms of his supervised release, and the district 

court revoked his supervised release. He was sentenced to 

concurrent terms of 24 months’ imprisonment to be followed by 

36 months’ supervised release in both cases. 

Grandison’s supervised release term commenced in March 

2017. In November 2018, Grandison’s probation officer petitioned 

USCA11 Case: 22-11572 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 05/04/2023 Page: 4 of 12
22-11572 Opinion of the Court 5

the court for revocation of Grandison’s supervised release, 

asserting that Grandison violated the conditions of his supervised 

release, which required him to (1) provide the probation officer 

with access to requested financial information, (2) not open any 

new lines of credit, (3) make timely restitution payments, and 

(4) not commit another crime. In 2022, Grandison’s probation 

officer amended the petition, alleging that Grandison also violated 

the conditions of his supervised release which prohibited him from 

leaving the judicial district without the permission of the court or 

his probation officer and required him to notify the probation 

officer of changes in his residence within a specified period of 

time.2 Grandison denied the violations. 

At the revocation hearing, Grandison’s probation officer 

testified that, in 2018, she discovered that Grandison had opened 

two new lines of credit and purchased two vehicles without prior 

approval. At that time, he was behind significantly on his monthly 

restitution payments. Upon questioning by the probation officer, 

Grandison admitted to purchasing the vehicles, but he stated that 

“he was tricked into signing the loan papers.” When the probation 

officer visited Grandison’s home, she observed a brand new 55-inch 

television still in the box, and Grandison said his girlfriend had 

purchased it, but at that time she was unemployed. The probation 

officer also observed paperwork for a third vehicle, which 

2 Grandison absconded from supervision in 2018, and he remained at large for 

three years. 

USCA11 Case: 22-11572 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 05/04/2023 Page: 5 of 12
6 Opinion of the Court 22-11572

Grandison stated was his daughter’s and that he “helped [her] with 

a car loan.” 

The probation officer instructed Grandison to report to her 

office and bring various financial records. He brought some, but 

not all, of the requested information, and he did the same thing 

again at a follow-up meeting a few days later. Grandison failed to 

show up for a reporting appointment in mid-November 2018, and 

he stopped responding to the officer’s calls. 

Meanwhile, the probation officer received phone calls from 

various individuals who stated that they had purchased vehicles 

from Grandison, but they did not receive the vehicles. Grandison’s 

employer also reported that Grandison was “scamming individuals 

who he worked with out of money.” And a check company 

reported that Grandison was cashing personal checks with 

insufficient funds. 

Additional evidence presented at the hearing established 

that, in 2018, a woman gave money to Grandison as payment for a 

car that he was supposed to procure for her at an auction, but she 

did not receive the vehicle as promised and Grandison stopped 

responding to her inquiries. Similarly, another individual sent 

Grandison money for the purchase of a vehicle, and Grandison 

gave him a vehicle for the weekend, but then took it back to have 

body work done on it. Grandison never picked up the car from the 

repair shop or paid the repair bill and the car was repossessed by a 

finance company. The body shop received multiple calls from 

multiple individuals who appeared to believe the car belonged to 

USCA11 Case: 22-11572 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 05/04/2023 Page: 6 of 12
22-11572 Opinion of the Court 7

them asking about the status of the vehicle. Furthermore, an 

elderly couple in Florida gave Grandison money for him to procure 

a tractor for them, but they never received the tractor. 

Moreover, in 2019, Grandison purchased two trucks and 

received a loaner vehicle from a dealership in Georgia, but the 

checks he used to purchase the vehicles bounced. When contacted 

about the checks, Grandison stated he would return the vehicles, 

but he did not do so—instead, the cars were later found in various 

locations after Grandison “sold” the cars to other individuals. 

Finally, in April 2021, Grandison was pulled over in Georgia. 

Grandison told the officer that his name was “Steven Watson,” and 

denied having a driver’s license. The officer was unable to verify 

Grandison’s identify with the name and birthdate he provided, and 

the officer arrested Grandison for driving without a license. Later, 

officers determined Grandison’s correct identity and discovered 

that he had multiple outstanding warrants. 

Based on the evidence presented during the revocation 

hearing, the district court found by a preponderance of the 

evidence that Grandison violated the terms of his supervised 

release by incurring new debt without prior approval, failing to pay 

restitution, committing new criminal conduct, and traveling 

outside the Southern District of Alabama without permission.3 

3 The district court found Grandison not guilty of violating the condition that 

required him to notify his probation officer of changes in his residency within 

a specified period of time. 

USCA11 Case: 22-11572 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 05/04/2023 Page: 7 of 12
8 Opinion of the Court 22-11572

Grandison’s probation officer recommended the district court

impose concurrent terms of the statutory maximum term of 36 

months’ imprisonment with no supervision to follow.4 In support 

of the requested sentence, the government emphasized 

Grandison’s criminal history, pattern of fraud, and prior 

revocations based on similar conduct. Grandison’s counsel 

requested that the district court “consider a sentence within the 

guidelines.” 

The district court sentenced Grandison to concurrent terms 

of 36 months’ imprisonment with no supervised release. The 

district court noted that it had considered the guidelines, but found 

a guideline sentence inappropriate. The district court reasoned as 

follows:

Well, Mr. Grandison, I’ve been doing this a long time, 

and I have never ever encountered anybody that 

committed as much fraud as you did over your 

lifetime. Your priors include at least four or five, six 

fraud cases, theft of property, at least four of those, 

lots of worthless checks, false statements.

And this case involves I don’t know how many people 

you swindled or made false statements to. And I 

wrote a note to myself before that you are highly 

4 Grandison’s advisory guidelines range was 21 to 27 months’ imprisonment. 

He faced a statutory maximum of 36 months’ imprisonment and 12 months’ 

supervised release. 

USCA11 Case: 22-11572 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 05/04/2023 Page: 8 of 12
22-11572 Opinion of the Court 9

likely of recidivism, but, because you pled guilty, I 

gave you guideline sentences each time.

This time, I’m giving you the maximum of 36 months 

with no supervised release to follow. I feel that you 

are a danger to the community, and I don’t know 

what’s ever going to stop you or if you ever will.

Grandison objected, arguing that “the sentence is substantively and 

figuratively unreasonable” and asked the district court to consider 

a guideline sentence. The district court overruled the objection 

without explanation. This appeal followed. 

II. Discussion

Grandison argues that the 36-month revocation sentence in 

each of his respective cases is substantively unreasonable because 

the district court failed to consider the § 3553(a) factors and relied 

exclusively on his potential for recidivism.5 

We review the “district’s court’s revocation of supervised 

release for an abuse of discretion.” United States v. Cunningham, 607 

F.3d 1264, 1266 (11th Cir. 2010). We will “vacate the sentence if, 

but only if, we ‘are left with the definite and firm conviction that 

5 The government argues that we should review Grandison’s claim for plain 

error because he failed to argue below that the district court did not consider 

the § 3553(a) factors or that it erroneously relied solely on Grandison’s risk of

recidivism, and his general challenge to the substantive reasonableness of the 

sentence was insufficient to preserve those issues. We need not decide 

whether plain error review applies because Grandison’s claim fails even under 

the lesser abuse of discretion standard. 

USCA11 Case: 22-11572 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 05/04/2023 Page: 9 of 12
10 Opinion of the Court 22-11572

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.’” 

United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1190 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc) 

(quoting United States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179, 1191 (11th Cir. 2008)). 

The party who challenges the sentence bears the burden of 

showing that the sentence is unreasonable. United States v. Tome, 

611 F.3d 1371, 1378 (11th Cir. 2010).

The district court may, after considering certain factors in 

§ 3553(a), revoke a defendant’s supervised release if the court finds 

by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated a 

condition of his supervised release. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). The 

factors the court must consider in sentencing a defendant after a 

revocation of supervised release include: (1) the nature and 

circumstances of the offense and the defendant’s history and 

characteristics; (2) the need for the sentence to deter criminal 

conduct, protect the public from the defendant’s further crimes, 

and provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational 

training, medical care, or other correctional treatment; (3) the 

sentencing guidelines range; (4) any pertinent policy statement; 

(5) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among 

similarly situated defendants; and (6) the need to provide 

restitution to victims of the offense. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (crossreferencing § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B)–(D), (a)(4)–(7)). The weight 

given to any § 3553(a) factor “is a matter committed to the 

discretion of the district court.” United States v. Williams, 526 F.3d 

1312, 1322 (11th Cir. 2008). 

USCA11 Case: 22-11572 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 05/04/2023 Page: 10 of 12
22-11572 Opinion of the Court 11

“If, after correctly calculating the guidelines range, a district 

court decides that a sentence outside that range is appropriate, it 

must consider the extent of the deviation and ensure that the 

justification is sufficiently compelling to support the degree of the 

variance.” Tome, 611 F.3d at 1378 (quotations omitted). “[T]he 

district court [is] free to consider any information relevant to a 

defendant’s background, character, and conduct in imposing an 

upward variance.” Id. at 1379 (quotation omitted). Although 

“[s]entences outside the guidelines are not presumed to be 

unreasonable, . . . we may take the extent of any variance into our 

calculus.” United States v. Shaw, 560 F.3d 1230, 1237 (11th Cir. 

2009). “However, we must give due deference to the district 

court’s decision that the § 3553(a) factors, [as] a whole, justify the 

extent of the variance.” Tome, 611 F.3d at 1378. 

Here, Grandison failed to show that the district court abused 

its discretion. Although the district court did not mention 

expressly the relevant § 3553(a) factors, the district court’s 

explanation when imposing the upward variance sentence 

establishes that it considered multiple § 3553(a) factors, including 

the applicable guidelines and sentences available, the nature and 

circumstances of the offense, Grandison’s history and 

characteristics, and the need for the sentence to deter criminal 

conduct and to protect the public from Grandison’s further crimes. 

See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(e). And the district court supported 

the upward variance with significant justifications, including 

Grandison’s prior criminal history and prior revocations for similar 

conduct. 

USCA11 Case: 22-11572 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 05/04/2023 Page: 11 of 12
12 Opinion of the Court 22-11572

To the extent Grandison quarrels with the weight and focus 

that the district court placed on his criminal history and recidivism, 

the weight given to any specific § 3553(a) factor is committed to 

the sound discretion of the district court. Williams, 526 F.3d at 

1322; see also United Statesv. Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d 1249, 1254 (11th 

Cir. 2015) (explaining that the district court “is permitted to attach 

great weight to one factor over others” (quotations omitted)). 

Given the broad sentencing discretion that district courts have and 

the totality of the circumstances in this case, we are not “left with 

the definite and firm conviction that the district court committed a 

clear error of judgment” in imposing an upward variance sentence 

of 36 months’ imprisonment. Irey, 612 F.3d at 1190. Accordingly, 

we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

 

USCA11 Case: 22-11572 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 05/04/2023 Page: 12 of 12