FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT J ANUARY 26 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 05- 1184 4

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 04-00023 -CR- 1-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us HAROLD OATNEAL, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J an ua ry26, 200 6) Be fo re T JO FL A T , A

N D E RS O N and B L A CK , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

H ar old O atne al appe al s th e 30- m onth se nte nc e im pose d a ft er

r ev oc at ionof his sup er vis ed r el ea se on the gr ound

that the dis tr ic t c ourt f

ai le d to c onsi de r the Ch ap te r 7 p ol ic y

st at em en ts at U.S.S.G. § 7B 1.4 . Si nc e Oat ne al rai se d h is sen te nc in g a rg um en t fo r th e fi rs t t im e o n app eal , we reviewit for plain err or. United States v. Aguillard, 217 F.3d 131 9, 1320 (11th Cir. 2000 ). W e w ill , in our

dis cr et ion , c or

re ct pla in e rr or

w he re the re is (1 ) er

ro r, ( 2) that i s pl ai n, and ( 3) that a ff ec ts s ubst an tia l r igh ts, but onl y if ( 4) the e rr or

se ri ousl y affe cts the fairness, integrity , or publ ic reputation of judicial procee ding s. United St at es v. Ro dr igu ez , 398 F . 3d 1 291, 129 8 ( 11th C ir . ), c er t. de nie d, ( U . S. Jun e 20, 2005 ) (N o. 04-1148) (internal citations and q uotatio ns om itted). Upon finding that a defe ndant vi olated supervis ed relea se, the district court m ay revoke the term

of supervised release and im pose a term

of im prisonm ent after co ns id eri ng va rio us fact or s s etou t i n 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a). 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 83 (e). T he te rm im pose d c annot

e xc ee d th e statut or

y m ax im um , w hic h is de te rm ine d by the c la ss o f the vio la tio n. I d. R el ev an t f ac tor s inde te rm ini ng the le ngth of im prisonm ent upon revocation include the nature and circum stances of the offense, the histo ry

and charac teristics of the defendant, the nee d for the sentence im posed to a ff or d a de quate de te rr en ce to cr im ina l c ondu ct , and the kin ds o f se nte nc es and se nte nc ing r an ge s e sta

bli she d un de r the appl ic ab le gui de lin es and p oli cy state m en ts3

iss ue d by the S en te nc ing Co m

m iss ion . 18 U . S. C. § 35 53( a) (1 ), ( 2) (B ), ( 4) (B ). T he sentencing cou rt “ shall state in op en court the rea sons for its im posit ion of a part ic ular se nte nc e, and, if the se nte nc e . . . is not

of the kin d, or

is out sid e the range, described in subs ection (a)( 4), the specif ic rea son for the im

posit ion of a se nt en ce d iff

eren t fr om

th atde sc rib ed .” 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( c)(2 ). Chapter 7 of the Se ntencing Guidelin es governs vio lations o f supervised relea se and contains po licy statem ents, one of which provid es rec omm ended ranges of im prisonm ent applicable upon revocation. U .S .S .G . § 7B1. 4(a). This Court has co nsi ste ntl y

he ld tha t the pol ic y

state m ents o f Ch ap te r 7 are m er el y a dvi sor y and not bin din g. A gui llard , 217 F . 3d at 13 20. Whil e the dis tr ic t c ourt i s r equir ed to co nsi de r the pol ic y

state m en ts, it

is not bound b y

the m . U nit ed

S ta te s v. Br ow n, 224 F.3d 123 7, 1242 (11th Cir. 2000 ). When exceeding the recom m ended range, th e co ur t n orm al ly m

us t i nd ic at e th atitco ns id eredth e Ch ap te r 7 p ol ic y st at em en ts . A g u i l l a r d , 2 1 7 F . 3 da t1 3 2 0 . N e v e rth e l e s s , i ti s “e n o u g h th a tth e r e i s s o me ind ic at ionthe dis tr ic t c ourt w as aw ar e of and c onsi de re d th em . ” I d. ( em pha sis added). Ba se d onthe “ som e ind ic at ion ” te st i n A gui llard , w e co nc lud e that the dis tr ic t c ourt he re did

not c om m it er ro r in i m posi ng a 30- m onth se nte nc e on O atne al . A t the he ar ing , the gov er nm en t c om

m en te d th at

“ the gui de lin e range in4

the c as e is . . . six to tw el ve m onths, the statut or y m ax im um is thr ee y ears , ” an d then m ade a r ecom

m endation o f tw o y ears’ im prisonm ent. O atneal’ s attorney stated th at two y ea rs wa s ex ce s s i v e a n dth e d i s tri ct co u rtre p l i edth at th e g o v ern m en t ’s re co m m en da tio n “ m ay

be le nie nt. ” A lth oughthe dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e xpl ic itl y m en tio n C ha

pte r 7 or the r ec om

m en de d gu ide lin e range , it w as aw ar e of

the r an ge be ca use the gov er

nm en t ha d in fo rm ed

the c ourt. T he dis tr ic t c ourt i m pli ci tly re j ec te d th e gui de lin e range w he n it not ed that the gov er

nm en t’ s r ec om

m en da tio n of two y ears w as “ lenient.” F urtherm ore, the district court annou nced in open court i t s s p e c i f i c r e a s o n f

o r i mp o s i n g a3 0 - mo n th s e n t e n c e , a s i s r e qu i r e db y § 3553 (c )( 2) . T he re fo re , the dis tr ic t c ourt c om m itt ed no e rr or in se nte nc ing O atne al . E ve n if O atne al c oul d de m onstrate that the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed by f ai lin g to co nsi de r the Ch ap te r 7 gu ide lin e range , he c oul d no t m ee t the thi rd pr ong of pla in er ro r re vie w . O atne al ha s no t sh ow n th at his se nte nc e w oul d have be endif fe re nt absent the error. The record does not reveal pre j udice to Oatneal’ s subs tantial ri ght s. T he gov er

nm en t e xpl ai ne d it s r ea sons f or se ek ing ase nte nc e be y ond the advisory range, and the court heard this explanation . T he governm ent dem onstrated that O atne al ha d r ep eate dly vio la te d hi s su

pe rv ise d r el ea se , de spi te pr ior he ar ing s an d se ve ra l a cc om

m odatio ns. T he dis tr ic t c ourt st at ed it s r ea son fo r im

posi ng a 30- m onth se nte nc e. T he se nte nc e im pose d by the dis tr ic t c ourt w as le ss than th eOatnea l’s reque st for ora l argument is denied. 1 5 statutory m axim um . Beca

use Oatnea l cannot dem onstrate that the district court failed to consider the Chapter 7 policy statem ents and because Oatneal’ s subs tantial r i g h t s w e r e n o ta f

f e c t e d , w e a f

f i rm. AFFIRMED. 1