A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s ti n the det erm i nat i on o f th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h is c a se is t her efor e s ubm i t t ed w i t houtor al ar gum ent . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s not bi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t ent w i t h Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 ( eff. D ec. 1, 2006) and 10th C i r . R . 32. 1 ( eff. J an. 1, 2 0 0 7 ). 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### D e c e m b e r12,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, N o. 06- 3110 v. D i s tr i ctof K ans as DE RE K T YR ONE HAR RI S ON,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. ( D. C. No . 9 8 - CR- 4 0 0 1 2 - 0 1 - J AR)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e M UR P HY , S EY M OUR , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es.

D efe ndantD er ek Ty r one H arr i s on ar gues t hatt he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s i m pos i t i on of a t erm of s upervi s ed r el eas e fol l ow i ng hi s vi ol at i on of an i ni t i al t erm of s upervi s ed r el eas e w as nei t herr eas oned norr eas onabl e. W e r ej ectt hi s ar gum ent a n d a ffirm th e ju d g m e n t o f th e d istric t co u rt.-2- BA CKGROUND I n 1998, M r . H arr i s on pl eade d gui l tyi n the D i s tr i ctof K ans as t o s even count s of r obbery , forw hi ch the courts ent ence d hi m t o concurr entt erm s of 109 m o n ths im p ri so n m en t fo ll o w ed b ythree y ea rs su p erv ised release . M r. H arrison ’s t erm of s upervi s ed r el eas e bega n Sept ember14, 2005. O n N ovember18, 2005, hi s pr obat i on offi ceri nform ed the di s tr i ctcourtt hatM r . H arr i s on had vi ol at ed the t erm s of hi s r el eas e. Fol l ow i ng M r . H arr i s on’ s s t i pul at i on t o tw o vi ol at i ons , t he d istric t co u rt o rd e re d h im to re sid e a t a h a lf w a yh o u se fo r u p to 1 8 0 d a y s a n d to c o m p le te a re s id e n tia l s u b s ta n c e a b u s e p ro g ra m . O n F eb rua ry1 0 , 2 0 0 6 , M r. H arrison ’s pro b ati o n o fficer info rm ed the c o u rt th a t M r. H a rriso n h a d v io late d th e h a lf w a yh o u se re sid e n c yc o n d iti o n . A t a hear i ng befor e the di s t r i ctcour t , M r . H arr i s on agai n s t i pul at ed t o vi ol at i ng the t erm s of hi s r el eas e. N ot i ng t hathe found s upervi s ed r el eas e unpal at abl e, he r eques t ed a s ent ence of tw el ve mont hs and one da yi m pr i s onm entw i th no s upervi s ed r el eas e. T he courtr evoked M r . H arr i s on’ s curr ents upervi s ed r el eas e, r ej ect ed hi s r eques t , and s ent ence d hi m t o ei ghtm onths i ncar cer at i on t o be fo llo w e d b ytw e n ty -fo u r m o n th s s u p e rv ise d re lea se . T h e c o u rt e x p lain e d th a t it had “c ons i der ed the natur e and c i r cumst ance s of the vi ol at i ons , as w el l as t he char act er i s t i cs of the defendant , as w el l as t he s ent enci ng obj ect i ves r equi r ed by s t atut e. ” R . V ol . I I , at5. T he court“al s o cons i der ed the advi s or y , nonbi ndi ng C hapt er7 pol i cys t at ement s i s s ued byt he Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on” as t o w hatt he-3-

p ro p e r s e n te n c e s h o u ld b e fo r a v io la tio n o f th e te rm s o f

s u p e rv is e d re le a s e . Id. ; see also U n ite d S ta te s S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s M a n u a l ( “ U .S .S .G .” ) C h . 7 (2 0 0 5 ). T he courtfound thatt he s ent ence i m pos ed w oul d “addr es s r ei nt egr at i on o bjecti v es a n d p rov ide d eterren ce fro m su b seq u en t cri m inal b eh av ior. ” R . V o l. II at 6. T h e c o u rtalso n o ted th at i t w as “ sp ec ifi ca ll y. . . d isr eg ard ing [D efen d an t’ s s e n te n c in g re q u e s t] b e c a u s e h is h is to ry o f d ru g a b u s e w a rr a n ts f u rt h e r t re a tm e n t,” and becau se conti nu ed m on i t ori ng un der supervi sed rel ease cou l d h el p ad dress M r. H a rr is o n ’s m e n ta l h e a lth is s u e s . Id. a t 1 1

– 1 2 . DI S CU S S I ON O n appea l , M r . H arr i s on cont ends t hatt he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s i m pos i t i on of su p erv ised release w as n eith er “ rea so n ed n o r reaso n ab le” u n d er Uni t ed Stat es v. C ontr er as - Mar t i nez , 409 F. 3d 1236, 1241 ( 10th C i r . 2005) , and Uni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) . H e ar gues t hatt he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s as s er t i ons re g a rd in g its c o n s id e ra tio n o f th e s e n te n c in g fa c to rs lis te d u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3553( a) w er e mer el y“per funct oryr eci t at i ons of w hatt he s ent enci ng courtknew s he w as t o cons i der , w i t houtanyi ndi cat i on thats he had a ctual l ycons i der ed the fac t or s as appl i ed t o M r . H arr i s on. ” B r i ef forD efe ndant - A ppel l antat5. W e r evi ew a s ent ence i m pos ed af t era vi ol at i on of s upervi s ed r el eas e under a “ p la in ly u n re a s o n a b le ” s ta n d a rd . See Uni t ed Stat es v. Kel l ey , 359 F. 3d 1302, 1304 ( 10t h C i r . 2004) . U nder18 U . S. C . § 3583( e) ( 3) , i f a de fenda nt ’ s or i gi nal offe ns e w as , as i n t hi s cas e, a cl as s C fel ony , t hen a di s tr i ctcourtm aypuni s h t he-4-

defe nd ant’ s vi olat i on of the t erm s of sup ervi sed rel ease byrevoking thatrel ease and i m po si ng up t o tw o y ears i m pri sonm ent. F urtherm ore, i f t he co urti m po ses a t erm of i m pr i s onm ent“l es s t han the maxi m um t erm of i m pr i s onm entauthor i zed unders ubs ect i on ( e) ( 3) , t he courtm ayi ncl ude a r equi r ementthatthe defendantbe p lac e d o n a ter m o f

su p e rv ise d re lea se a f ter im p riso n m e n t,” th e len g th o f w h ich is no tt o “ex ceed the t erm of sup ervi sed rel ease authori zed b yst atute for the o ffen se t hatr es ul t ed i n t he or i gi nal t erm of r el eas e, l es s anyt erm of i m pr i s onm entthat w as im p o sed u p o n rev o ca ti o n o f su p erv ised release . ” 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 8 3 (h). I n announci ng a new s ent ence , t he courtm us tcons i derthe fa ct or s s etfor th i n 18 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ). See Uni t ed Stat es v. Lee , 9 5 7 F .2 d 7 7 0 , 7 7 4 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ). T he s ent enci ng cour t , how ever , need not“cons i deri ndi vi dual l yeac h fac t orl i s t ed in § 3 5 5 3 (a ),” o r “ re c ite a n ym a g ic w o rd s to sh o w u s th a t itf u lfill e d its re sp o n sib ili tyto b e m in d f u l o f th e fa c to rs th a t C o n g re ss h a s in stru c ted it t o cons i der . ” C ontr er as - Mar t i nez , 409 F. 3d at1242 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . I n addi t i on, t he di s tr i ctcour tm us tcons i der , butneed not fol l ow , t he s ent enci ng r ecomm endat i ons forvi ol at i ons of s upervi s ed r el eas e s et fo rt h b yth e U .S . S e n te n c in g C o m m is s io n . See U . S. S. G . C h. 7; Lee , 957 F. 2d at 774–75. L as t , as w e have pr evi ous l ym ade c l ear , a r evoca t i on s ent ence m us tbe bot h “r eas oned and r eas onabl e. ” C ontr er as - Mar t i nez , 409 F. 3d at1241. T he sentence i m po sed bythe d i stri ctcou rti n thi s case easi l ysat i sfi es these req u ir em en ts. F ir st, the re co rd re co u n ted a b o v e m ak es p lai n that the c o u rt ’s-5-

deci s i on w as r eas oned. T he di s t r i ctcour texpl ai ned thati thad cons i der ed the § 3 5 5 3 (a) sen tenc ing fa ctors b efo re im p o sing sen tenc e. M o reo v er, th e c o u rt cr edi t ed part i cul arfac t or s as m i l i t at i ng forthe s ent ence i n thi s cas e. M r . H arr i s on cont ends t hatt hes e expl anat i ons w er e “pe r funct or y , ” butw hataddi t i onal verbi age w o u ld sa tisf

yh im re m a in s u n c lea r. In a n ye v e n t, w e d isa g re e w ith h is c h a ra c ter iza tio n . A s w e n o ted a b o v e , a s e n ten c in g c o u rt n e e d n o t u tter “ m a g ic w o rd s ” to s a tis f

yits d u ty o f

re a s o n e d d e c is io n m a k in g , s ee Cont r er as - Mar t i nez , 409 F. 3d at1242, and the expl anat i ons offe r ed her e w er e ade quat e. S e c o n d , th e te rm s o f

M r. H a rr is o n ’s s e n te n c e a re e m in e n tly re a s o n a b le . T h e S en tenc ing G u idelines su g g est a five- to e leve n -m o n th se n tenc e fo r a d e fe n d a n t in M r. H a rr is o n ’s p o s itio n . See U . S . S . G . § 7 B 1 . 4 (a). M r. H arrison ’s e ig h t m o n th p riso n se n ten c e fa lls in th e m id d le o f th is ra n g e . B a se d o n th is pr i s on t erm , t he courtw as author i zed t o i m pos e up t o tw enty - ei ghtm onths of s upervi s ed r el eas e under18 U . S. C . § 3583( h) ( thi r ty - s i x m onths of s upervi s ed r el eas e author i zed fora C l as s C fel ony , 18 U . S. C . § 3583( b) ( 2) , l es s ei ghtm ont hs o f i m p r i s o n m e n ta c tu a l l y i m p o s e d , 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 8 3 ( h ) ) . M r . H a rr i s o n ’ s tw e n t yfour - m ont h t erm fal l s w i t hi n t hi s l i m i t . T hus , i n s ent enci ng M r . H arr i s on, the dis t ri ctcou rtcom pli ed w i t h st atutoryrequi rem ents , ado pted the G uidel i nes’ r ecomm endat i ons , and expl ai ned i t s r eas ons fordoi ng s o. Such a pr oces s i s not onl yr eas onabl e butexempl ary . A s s uch, w e uphol d the s ent ence i n thi s cas e.-6- CO NC L US I ON T he j udgm entof the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tfort he D i s tr i ctof K ans as i s AFF I RM ED . E n te re d fo r t h e C o u rt , M ich a e l W . M c C o n n e ll C i r cui tJ udge