Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Patrice THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-04-06
Citations: 422 F. App'x 793
Docket Number: No. 10-14646
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Patrice THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 422
Pages: 793–793

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Patrice THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-14646
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
April 6, 2011.
Anne R. Schultz, Wifredo A. Ferrer, U.S. Attorney, Kathleen M. Salyer, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, Patricia L. Diaz, United States Attorney’s Office, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Gail M. Stage, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, Kathleen M. Williams, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before WILSON, MARTIN and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Patrice Thomas appeals her 7-month sentence imposed after her probation was revoked pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3565(a). Thomas argues that her sentence was substantively unreasonable because her crime leading to her revocation was minor, her probation history was otherwise clean, she accepted responsibility, and all parties had agreed that the proper punishment was an anti-theft program.
Upon review of the record and consideration of the parties' briefs, we affirm Thomas's sentence. The sentence fell in the middle of the applicable 4-10 month guideline range, and we ordinarily expect guideline sentences to be reasonable. United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir.2005) (per curiam). And Thomas's sentence achieved the purposes of sentencing as stated in § 3553(a). The term of imprisonment, anti-theft program, and restitution deterred Thomas, protected the public from further crimes, took into account the nature of the offense and the characteristics of Thomas, provided Thomas with needed correctional treatment, and provided compensation to Thomas's victim. The district court did not abuse its discretion. Accordingly, we affirm Thomas's sentence.
AFFIRMED.