FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T AUGUST 23, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]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- 10 01 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock et No. 8 :9 3- cr-0 02 49 -RAL-2

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A,
Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,

ve rs us TERRANCE MALLOY,
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 ur t for th e Mi dd le Dis tri ct of F lo rid a

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Au gu st 23 , 20 10 )
Befo re HULL, MARCUS an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s.
PER CURI AM:
Terran ce Mal lo y ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s rev o c a t i o n of hi s su pe rv is ed
rel eas e, m ad e pu rs ua nt to 18 U.S.C. § 35 83 (e)( 3)

. On ap pe al , he arg ue s th at : (1 ) th edi st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n whe n it co nc l u d ed th at he co m m it te d a vi ol at io n
of Fl a. St at

. § 31 6.1 93 5( 3) , ev en th ou gh st at e of fic ia ls on ly ch a r g e d h i m wit h a
vi ol at io n o f § 31 6.1 93 5( 1) ; an d (2 ) hi s 59 -m on th se nt en ce is su bs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le . After t ho ro ug h re vi ew, we affi rm
. W e rev ie w a se nt en ce im po s e d u p o n rev oc at io n of su pe rv is ed rel eas e fo r

reas on ab le ne ss
. Uni te d St at es v. Sweet in g, 43 7 F.3 d 11 05 , 11 06 -0 7 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 06 ).
Our “ reas on ab le ne ss ” rev ie w “m e rel y as ks whe th er th e tri al co ur t ab us ed it s
di sc ret io n.” Uni te d St at es v. P u g h , 5 1 5 F.3 d 11 79 , 1 18 9 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 08 ) (q uo ti ng
Ri ta v. Un it ed Sta te s, 5 51 U.S. 33 8, 3 51 (20 07 )).
Fi rs t, we are u np ers ua de d b y Mal lo y ’s cla im

th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s
di sc ret io n whe n it co nc lu de d th at he co m m it te d a vi ol a t i o n o f Fl a. St at

. §
31 6.1 93 5( 3)

. “ Und er 18 U.S.C. § 3 5 8 3 (e), a di st ric t co ur t m ay , up on fin di ng by a
pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce th at a de fen da nt ha s vi ol at ed a co nd it io n of su pe rv is ed
rel eas e, rev ok e th e te rm of su pe rv is ed rel eas e an d im po se a te rm of im

pr is on m en t.”
Sweet in g, 4 3 7 F

. 3 d a t 11 07

. A m an da to ry te rm of su pe rv is ed rel eas e is th at th e
de fen da nt no t co m

m it an ot he r fed eral , st at e, or lo cal cri m e. 18 U.S.C. § 35 83 (d ).
The co m m en ta ry to th e po li cy st at em en ts in th e Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s pr ov id es th at

a de fen da nt m ay be ch arg ed wit h vi ol at in g th is m an da to ry ter m “ whe th er o r no t t he
de fen da nt ha s be en th e su bjec t of a s e pa rat e fed eral , st at e, or lo cal pr os ecu ti on fo r

2su ch co nd uc t.” U.S.S.G. § 7B 1.1 co m m en t. (n .1). Alt ho ug h th es e po li cy st at em en ts

are no t bi nd in g on th e di st ric t co ur t, it is st il l req ui red to co ns id er th em
. See Uni te d
St at es v. Si lv a, 44 3 F .3d 79 5, 7 99 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ).
On th e reco rd he re, th e di st ric t co ur t act ed wit hi n it s di sc ret io n whe n it rev ok ed
Mal lo y ’s su pe rv is ed rel eas e by fin di ng by a pr ep on de ran ce o f t h e e v id en ce th at he
vi ol at ed Fla . Sta t. § 31 6.1 93 5( 3) , ev en th ou gh st at e of fic ia ls on ly ch arg ed hi m

wit h

a vi ol at io n of § 31 6.1 93 5( 1)

. Not hi ng in 18 U.S.C. § 35 83 (e)( 3) req ui res th e di st ric t

co ur t to ba se it s rev oc at io n de ci si on on on ly th os e vi ol at io ns ch arg e d b y s t a te
of fic ia ls , an d th e S e n t e nc in g Gui de li ne s ack no wled ge th is fact by in di cat in g th at
di st ric t co ur ts m ay rev ok e a de fen da nt ’s su pe rv is e d r el eas e ba se d on co nd uc t th at

st at e of fic ia ls ch oo se no t to pr os ecu te

. See U.S.S.G. § 7B 1.1 co mm e n t. (n .1). The
di st ric t co ur t’s co ns id erat io n of , an d ul ti m at e ag reem en t wit h, th e Gui de li ne s,

st an di n g al on e, do es no t am ou nt to an ab us e of di sc ret io n. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm
th e d is tri ct co ur t’s d eci si on to rev ok e Ma ll oy’ s s up erv is ed rel eas e.
N o r ha s Mal lo y sh own th at hi s res ul ti ng se nt en ce was su bs ta nt iv e l y

un reas on ab le

. W e rev ie w th e “ ‘sub st an ti ve reas on ab le ne ss of th e se nt en ce im po se d

un de r an ab us e -o f-d is cret io n st an da rd ,’ ” ba se d on th e “ ‘tot al it y of th e
ci rcu m st an ces .’ ” Pu gh , 51 5 F.3 d at 11 90 (q uo ti ng Gall , 55 2 U.S. at 51 ). Thi s rev ie w
is “d e fere nt ia l,” req ui rin g us to de te rm in e “ whe th er th e se nt en ce im po se d by th e

3di st ric t co ur t fai ls to ach ie ve th e pu rp os es of se nt en ci ng as st at ed in se ct io n 35 53 (a).”

Uni te d S ta te s v . Tall ey , 43 1 F .3d 78 4, 7 88 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). 1

“ The weig ht to be acco rd ed an y gi ve n § 355 3( a) facto r is a m at te r co m m it te d

to th e so un d di sc ret io n of th e di st ric t co ur t, an d we wil l no t su bs ti tu te ou r jud gm en t
in weig hi ng th e rel ev an t fact or s.” Uni te d St at es v. Am ed eo , 48 7 F.3 d 82 3, 83 2 (1 1t h
Ci r. 20 07 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n an d br ack et s om it te d)

. W e wil l rem an d fo r

res en te nc in g on ly if we are “ le ft wit h th e de fin it e an d fir m co nv ic ti on th at th e di st ric t

co ur t co m

m it te d a cl ear erro r o f jud gm en t in weig hi ng th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s by
arri vi ng at a se nt en ce tha t li es ou ts id e th e ran ge of reas on ab le se nt en ces di ct at ed by
th e fact s of th e cas e.” Pu gh , 51 5 F.3 d at 11 91 (ci ta ti on an d in te rn al qu ot at io n

om it te d)

. The bu rd en is on th e de fen da nt to sh ow th at th e se nt en ce was un reas on ab le
in li gh t o f th e rec or d a nd th e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s. Tal le y , 43 1 F .3d at 7 88

. Mal lo y ’s 59 -m on th , ab ov e gu id el in es se nt en ce is su bs ta nt iv el y reas on ab le

. As
th e reco rd sh ows , th e di st ric t co ur t an al y zed Mal lo y ’s hi s t o ry an d ch arac te ris ti cs ,

reco gn iz in g th at it ha d pr ev io us ly gi ve n Mal lo y mu l t i pl e br eak s, y et Mal lo y

The § 3553(a ) fa ctors a c ourt should consider in sente ncing a def endant a fter a 1
revoc ation of super

vised rele ase inc lude: (1) the nature a nd circ umstances of

the offe nse and the defe ndant’s history

and cha rac teristics; (2) the ne ed for the sentenc e to deter

criminal conduc t, protec t the public from the de fenda nt’s further

crimes, a nd provide the de fenda

nt with needed educational or voca tional training , medical c are , or other c orre ctional trea tment; (3) the sentenc ing g uideline ra

ng e; (4) a ny pertinent policy

statement; (5) the need to a void unwarr anted sentenc e disparities a mong similarly situated defe ndants; and (6) the nee d to provide re stitut ion to victims of the offense . See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a) and 3583(e ).
4co nt in ue d to en ga ge in cri m in al act iv it y
. The co ur t fu rth er no te d th at Mal lo y h ad

pr ev io us ly fle d an d el ud ed po li ce of fic ers , whi ch res ul te d in an of fic er ha vi ng to se ek
im m ed ia te m ed ic al tre at m en t. And he re, Mal lo y ag ai n fle d an d el ud ed po li ce of fic ers
wit ho ut reg ard fo r th e sa fet y of ot he rs
. The di st ric t co ur t th us co nc lu de d th at fle ei ng

an d el ud in g co ns ti tu te d a cri m e of vi ol en ce un de r § 31 6.1 93 5( 3) be c a u s e M a l lo y
sh owe d wan to n di sr eg ard for th e sa fet y of th e ne ig hb or ho od , o th er dr iv ers , a nd th e
po li ce of fic ers , an d Mal lo y do es no t co nt es t th is co nc lu si on
. Bas ed on th is co nd uc t,
th e co ur t al so co nc lu de d th at a reas on ab le se nt en ce was th e st at ut or y maxi m um
pe na lt y
. In reac hi ng th is co nc lu si on , th e co ur t pl aced m or e weig ht on th e se rio us ne ss
of th e cri m e an d Mal lo y ’s hi st or y an d ch arac te ris ti cs , an d le ss weig ht on Mal lo y ’s

arg um en ts in m it ig at io n, whic h is wit hi n it s so le di sc ret io n. See Am ed eo , 48 7 F.3d

at 83 2.

In ad di ti on , th e co ur t’s fin di ng s reg ard in g th e im po rta nt § 35 53 (a) fact or s are
sup po rte d by th e reco rd , an d Mal lo y ’s il le ga l act iv it ie s oc cu rred jus t ov er fo ur m on th s
aft er he beg an hi s term of su pe rv is ed rel eas e. Thu s, Mall oy ha s no t dem on st rat ed a
cl ear erro r of jud gm en t in th e co ur t’s weig hi ng of th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s. Fu rth er, th e
di st ric t co ur t h a d t h e au th or it y to va ry th e se nt en ce ab ov e th e gu id el in es ran ge
be cau se Ch ap te r Sev en of th e Sen te nc in g Gui de li n e s i s “m erel y ad vi so ry .” Uni te d

5St at es v. Agu il la rd , 2 17 F.3 d 13 19 , 1 32 0 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 0)

. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

hi s s en te nc e as su bs ta nt iv el y reas on ab le

. 2

AFFIRMED.

Malloy has fa iled to offer

any arg ument in his ini tial brief r eg arding the proc edura l 2
rea sonablene ss of his sentence , the district court’s use of uncha rg ed conduc t in determining the g rade of his supervised r elea se violation, or the suff iciency of the e vidence for a

§ 316.1935(3) violation. He there fore has aba ndoned any

arg ument perta ining to these issues. See United States v. Curtis, 380 F.3d 1308, 1310 (11th Cir. 2004) (holding that “issues not raise d by a defe ndant in his init ial brief on a ppeal a re de emed wa ived”) . Howeve r, to the extent Malloy sug g ests that the district court did not consider specific mitigating evidenc e in deter mining his sentenc e -- a proc edura l arg ument -- Ma lloy ’s ar g ument is without m erit bec ause the district court c onsidered the § 3553(a) fac tors, and it was unde r no oblig ation to discuss eac h mitigating fac tor individually . See Amede o, 487 F.3d a t 833.
6