Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Troy SLAY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-03
Citations: 381 F. App'x 893
Docket Number: Nos. 09-14625, 09-14626
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Troy SLAY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before CARNES, PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 381
Pages: 893–893

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Troy SLAY, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 09-14625, 09-14626
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
June 3, 2010.
Robert Godfrey, Office of the Federal Defender, M.D. Florida, Rosemary T. Cak-mis, Federal Public Defender, Orlando, FL, Donna Lee Elm, Jacksonville, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.
Judy K. Hunt, United States Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Before CARNES, PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Troy Slay appeals his sentence of 60 months of imprisonment after the revocation of his supervised release. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). Slay argues that the district court failed to provide a written statement to explain why it varied upward from the guideline range. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2). We affirm.
We review de novo whether a district court complied with section 3553(c). United States v. Bonilla, 463 F.3d 1176, 1181 (11th Cir.2006). An error in sentencing is reviewed for harmless error. Under that standard, after "viewing the proceedings in their entirety, . [if] the error did not affect the sentence or had but very slight effect," we will affirm the sentence. United States v. Mathenia, 409 F.3d 1289, 1292 (11th Cir.2005).
We need not decide whether the district court erred because any error in failing to provide Slay a written statement is harmless. The district court explained at Slay's sentencing hearing that it varied upward to punish Slay for having manipulated and deceived the prosecutor and the district court. Slay obtained permission to associate with known felons ostensibly to assist law enforcement and then used those contacts to distribute cocaine. Slay does not argue that the explanation provided at his sentencing hearing was deficient or otherwise affected his ability to appeal his sentence. Slay was not harmed by the lack of a written statement.
Slay's sentence is AFFIRMED.