FILED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IR C U IT MAY 31 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 16327 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D o c k e tN o . 0 4 - 0 0 2 6 2 - C R - 2 - L S C - T MP U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s G E R A L D B E R N A R D F O R D , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e r n D i s tr i c to f A l a b a ma

_________________________ ( M ay 31, 2006) B efo re B L A C K , B A R K E T T an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: G er al d B er nard F ord app ea l s hi s 24-m on th sent ence i m po se d aft er2

re vo ca t i on of hi s s up er vi se d rel ea se , pu rs uantt o 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 58 3(e) . A ft er r e v i e w , w e a f

f i r m. I . B AC KG RO UN D F or d w a s c onvi c t e d of

be i ng a f

e l on i n pos s e s s i on of

a f i r e a r m , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 922( g) ( 1) . F or d w a s s e nt e nc e d t o 12 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e nta nd three ye ar s’ supervi se d rel ea se . F ord h ad a hi st ory of s ub st ance abuse, and m uch of hi s c ri m i nal hi st ory s t em m ed fr om al coho l and d rug-re l at ed offens es . F ord h ad t e s t e d pos i t i ve f

orc oc a i ne w hi l e on bond a w a i t i ng hi s s e nt e nc i ng. T hus , the cond i t i on s of F ord’ s s up er vi se d rel ea se i ncl ud ed thathe no tcom m i tanot her f e de r a l , s t a t e orl oc a l c r i m e , tha the notpos s e s s orus e a c ontr ol l e d s ubs t a nc e a nd thathe part i ci pat e i n t he D rug and A l coho l Int ensi ve C ou nsel i ng and A ft er ca re Se r v i c e Pr o g r a m. T hree m on ths af

t erF ord’ s s up er vi se d rel ea se began, hi s probat i on offi ce r pet i t i on ed the di stri ctcourtt o revok e hi s r el ea se on tw o g roun ds: (1) F ord h ad been a r r e s t e d on tw o s t a t e m i s de m e a norc ha r ge s , a nd ( 2) F or d ha d a dm i tt e d t o us i ng coca i ne and m ar i

j uana. A tthe re vo ca t i on hear i ng , F ord adm i t t ed the vi ol at i on s, and t he di stri ctcourt foun d t hatF ord h ad vi ol at ed the cond i t i on s of hi s r el ea se . T he prob at i on offi ce r r e c o m m e n d e d a f

iv e - m o n th s e n te n c e f

o llo w e d b y s ix m o n th s in a h a lf w a y h o u s e to3

re ce i ve drug tre atm ent . T he di stri ctcourt , ho w ever , no t ed that , i f F ord w as s e nt e nc e d t o the s t a tut or y m a xi m um of 24 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e nt , he w oul d be e l i gi bl e f orthe 500- houri nt e ns i ve i npa t i e ntdrug tr e a t m e ntpr ogr a m of f e r e d by the B urea u o f P ri sons (“ B O P ”) . T he prob at i on offi ce r des cr i bed t he 50 0-ho ur prog ra m a s “p r o b a b ly th e m o s t c o m p r e h e n s iv e a n d e x te n s iv e p r o g r a m th a t [ is ] a v a ila b le w ith in [ th e ] s y s te m .” N ot i ng F ord’ s hi st ory of s ub st ance -a bu se -r el at ed offens es , the di stri ctcourt s ta te d th a t it w a n te d th e b e s t s e n te n c in g o p tio n to k e e p F o r d o f f d ru g s s o h e w o u ld s t op of f e ndi ng. T he di s tr i c tc our ta s ke d F or d w he the rhe w a s pr e s e nt l y “ c l e a n” or

“ di r ty . ” F or d r e s ponde d tha the w a s “ c l e a n” f orboth c oc a i ne a nd m a r i j ua na . T he di stri ctcourtre ce ss ed so thata drug t es tcoul d b e c on du ct ed. T he t es tca m e bac k pos i t i ve f

orc oc a i ne . F or d di d notc ont e s tthi s f i ndi ng. W h en th e rev o cat i o n h eari n g resu m ed , th e d i stri ctco u rtst at ed th at , b ecau se F ord h ad l i ed t o t he court , had fai l ed t o p ar t i ci pat e i n t he drug tre atm entoffe re d dur i ng hi s r e l e a s e a nd ha d a hi s t or y of s ubs t a nc e - a bus e c r i m e s , i ts a w no r e a s on not t o i m pos e a 24- m onth s e nt e nc e a nd r e i t e r a t e d tha ti tw a nt e d F or d t o ge tdrug tre atm ent . B ec ause F ord com m i t t ed G ra de C vi ol at i on s a nd had a cri m i nal hi st ory ca t egory of I II , the di stri ctcourtconcl ud ed thatthe appl i ca bl e a dv i sory G ui del i nes r a n g e w a s 5 to 1 1 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t.Fa ctors the district cour t must consider include the nature a nd circ umstances of

the 1 of fens e ; th e his tor

y and c ha ra c te ri sti c s o f t

hede fend ant; thene e d f

or these ntenc e imp os e d to aff ord ade quate de terrence to c riminal conduct, prote ct the public from further crimes of the defendant, and provide the def endant with nee ded cor

rec tional treatment in the most eff ective mann e r; and

thekin ds of

se ntenc e s and

se ntenc ingra

ng e s e sta bli sh e d und e r t

hea pp lic a ble guidelines and policy

statements issued by

the SentencingCommi ssion. 18 U.S.C . § 3553(a) (1), (2)( B) -(D) , (4)( B) . 4 T he di s tr i c tc our tthe n i m pos e d a 24- m onth s e nt e nc e w i th the r e c om m e nda t i on tha tF or d be e va l ua t e d a nd a l l ow e d t o pa r t i c i pa t e i n the 500- hour pr ogr a m . W he n F or d a s ke d f orr e c ons i de r a t i on, the di s tr i c tc our ts t a t e d tha ta 24- m onth s e nt e nc e w a s the be s tw a y t o a c c om pl i s h the goa l s of ke e pi ng F or d f

r om com m i t t i ng m ore off

ense s a nd prov i di ng hi m w i th d rug abu se tre atm ent . F ord f ile d th is a p p e a l. I I . DI S CUS S I ON U pon f i ndi ng tha ta de f

e nda ntvi ol a t e d a c ondi t i on of s upe r vi s e d r e l e a s e , the di s tr i c tc our tm a y r e voke the t e r m of s upe r vi s e d r e l e a s e a nd i m pos e a t e r m of i m pri sonm entaf

t erconsi deri ng vari ou s f ac t ors s etforth i n 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) . 1 18 U . S . C . § 3583( e ) . A c our tm a y c ons i de ra de f e nda nt ’ s r e ha bi l i t a t i ve ne e ds w hen i m po si ng i m pri sonm entfol l ow i ng re vo ca t i on of supervi se d rel ea se . U ni t ed S t a t e s v. B r ow n, 224 F . 3d 1237, 1242 ( 11 C i r . 2000) ( c onc l udi ng tha ti m pos i t i on th of s t a tut or y m a xi m um pr i s on s e nt e nc e i n or de rf orde f e nda ntt o ge ti n- hous e drug tr e a tm e n t w a s n o t a n a b u s e o f d is c r e tio n ) . T h e s e n te n c in g c o u r t “s h a ll s ta te in ope n c our tthe r e a s ons f ori t s i m pos i t i on of

a pa r t i c ul a rs e nt e nc e , a nd, i f theWe reviewa sente nce imposed upon revocation of supervised relea se for 2 rea sonablene ss. United States v. Sweeting , 437 F.3d 1105, 1106- 07 (11 Cir. 2006) (explaining th that th e re a so na

blene ss s tand ard

a pp lie d a ft e r Unit e d St ate s v . B oo ke r, 54 3 U .S. 22 0, 12 5 S. Ct. 7 3 8 ( 2 0 0 5 ) , is e s s e nti a lly

th e s amea s th e p r e - B o o k e r “p lain ly unr e a s o n a

b le ” s ta n d ar d) . We re v i ewfo r ab u s e o f d i s cr et i o na d i s tri ctco urt ’s d ec i s i o nt o i mp o s e as ent en ce ab o v e th e r an ge rec ommended by

Chapter 7 of

the SentencingGuidelines. B rown, 224 F .3d at 1239.

5 s e n te n c e . . . is n o t o f

th e k in d , o ris o u ts id e th e [ g u id e lin e ] r a n g e , . . . th e s p e c if ic r e a s o n f o ri mp o s i t i o n o f

a s e n t e n c e d i f

f e r e n tf r o m th a td e s c r i b e d . . . . ” 1 8 U . S. C. § 3 5 5 3 ( c ) ( 2 ) . T he di s tr i c tc our tm us ta l s o c ons i de rthe pol i c y s t a t e m e nt s i n C ha pt e r7 of the S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s , one of w hi c h pr ovi de s r e c om m e nde d r a nge s of i m pri sonm ent . B row n, 22 4 F . 3d at12 42 . B ec ause these po l i cy st at em ent s a re a dvi s or y a nd nonbi ndi ng, the di s tr i c tc our ti s notr e qui r e d t o s e nt e nc e w i thi n the ra ng e r ec om m ended b y C hapt er7. Id. T he di stri ctcourti s c on stra i ned, ho w ever , b y 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 8 3 (e), w h i ch p ro v i d es m ax i m u m sen t en ces fo r su p erv i sed rel ease v i o l at o rs. 2 W ith G ra d e C v io lati o n s a n d a c rim in al h isto ry ca teg o ry o f I II , F o rd ’s reco m m en d ed G u i d el i n es ran g e u n d er ad v i so ry C h ap t er 7 w as 5 t o 1 1 m o n th s’ i m p ri so n m en t . S ee U . S . S . G . § 7 B 1 . 4 (a). B ecau se F o rd ’ s o ri g i n al o ffen se w as a C l a s s C f e l ony , hi s m a xi m um s t a tut or y t e r m of i m pr i s onm e ntupon r e voc a t i on of supervi se d rel ea se w as tw o yea rs . S ee 18 U . S . C . § 3 58 3(e) (3). U nd erthe fa ctual ci rc um st ance s of thi s c as e, w e c on cl ud e thatthe di stri ctIn addition, the district court expressed c oncer n about imposing a

sentenc e below 24 3 months because , if Ford ag ain violated the ter ms of his supervised re lease , the available sentenc e 6 court ’ s dec i si on t o sent ence F ord o ut si de the advi sory G ui del i nes r ange w as no tan a bus e of di s c r e t i on a nd tha tF or d’ s tw o- y e a rs e nt e nc e w a s notunr e a s ona bl e . T he di s tr i c tc our tga ve r e a s ons s uppor t e d by the r e c or d, i nc l udi ng F or d’ s ne e d f ordrug treat m en t , fo r i m p o si n g a sen t en ce ab o v e th e reco m m en d ed ran g e, as req u i red b y § 35 53 (c )( 2). S ee B row n, 22 4 F . 3d at12 40 & n. 1(concl ud i ng thatdi stri ctcourtm ay p r o p e r ly c o n s id e rs u p e r v is e d r e le a s e v io la to r ’s n e e d f o rd ru g tr e a tm e n t in det er m i ni ng l engt h o f s ent ence ). T he di stri ctcourtal so consi dere d t he § 3 55 3(a) f a c t or s i n s e l e c t i ng a tw o- y e a rs e nt e nc e , i nc l udi ng F or d’ s c ha r a c t e r i s t i c s a nd h is to r y o f

d ru g a b u s e a n d d ru g - r e la te d c r im e s , th e n e e d f o rd e te r r e n c e , th e n e e d to pr ot e c tthe publ i c f

r om f ur the rc r i m e s by F or d, a nd the m os te f f e c t i ve m a nne rof obt a i ni ng drug tr e a t m e ntf orF or d. F o r d ’s a r g u m e n t th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t im p o s e d a s e n te n c e le s s lik e ly to ob t ai n d rug t re atm entfor hi m i s notsupp ort ed by the re cord. Indeed, i tappears m ore l i kel y thatF ord w i l l getef fe ct i ve drug tre atm entw i th t he se nt ence i m po se d by the di stri ctcourt . T he prob at i on offi ce r s t at ed thatthe B O P ’ s 500 -hou r program w a s the m os tc om pr e he ns i ve a nd e xt e ns i ve w i thi n the pr i s on s y s t e m . A s not e d, F ord h ad fa i l ed t o at t end t he ou tpat i enttre atm entre qu i re d as par tof hi s s up er vi se d r e l e a s e a nd ha d be e n us i ng drugs w hi l e on s upe r vi s e d r e l e a s e . F ur the r m or e , the 3wo uld

beun de r 2 4 mo nth s, wh ic h w ou ld m akeF ord in e lig ibl e fo r t he50 0- ho ur

progra m. 7 ch o ice b etw ee n th e tw o trea tm en t alt er n ativ es w as w ith in th e d istrict co u rt’s di s c r e t i on. W e a ff i rm F ord’ s tw o-ye arse nt ence . AF F I RME D.