Opinion ID: 62390
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Reasonableness of Reid’s Sentence

Text: A district court’s decision to exceed the advisory sentencing range in Chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines, U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4, is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Silva, 443 F.3d 795, 798 (11th Cir. 2006). We 5 review the sentence imposed upon the revocation of supervised release for reasonableness. United States v. Sweeting, 437 F.3d 1105, 1106-07 (11th Cir. 2006). Section 3583 of Title 18 provides that a district court may revoke a term of supervised release and impose a sentence of imprisonment for the violation after considering factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Sweeting, 437 F.3d at 1107. Section 3553(a) provides that district courts imposing a sentence must first consider, inter alia, (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense; (2) the history and characteristics of the defendant; (3) the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, and provide just punishment for the offense; and (4) the kinds of sentences and sentencing range established by the Guidelines, and in the case of a violation of supervised release, the applicable Guidelines or policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission. Id. The term imposed cannot exceed the statutory maximum. Id. For a Class B felony, the district court may not sentence a defendant for more than three years’ imprisonment. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). Chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines recommends a sentencing range of 3 to 9 months for a Grade C violation of supervised release when the defendant has a criminal history category of I. U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4. We have consistently held that the policy 6 statements of Chapter 7 are merely advisory and not binding. United States v. Aguillard, 217 F.3d 1319, 1320 (11th Cir. 2000). To the extent that Reid argues that his sentence is unreasonable because the district court failed to properly consider the § 3553(a) factors, the district court’s comments at the revocation hearing indicated that it considered those factors, particularly the nature and seriousness of the underlying offense, the need to provide just punishment, and the need to promote respect for the law in imposing a sentence above the advisory guideline range. The district court may determine the weight to be afforded any given § 3553(a) factor. See United States v. Amedeo, 487 F.3d 823, 832 (11th Cir. 2007). Specifically, the court found that Reid’s failure to pay restitution was a serious violation in light of the amount of money he embezzled, which exceeded $200,000. The court noted that Reid was granted a second opportunity to comply with the conditions of his release, but determined that he ignored his obligations and continued to violate those conditions by failing to pay restitution and by failing to report to his probation officer. In light of Reid’s conduct while on supervised release, including his willful failure to pay restitution, he failed to satisfy his burden to show that sentence was unreasonable, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a sentence that exceeded the advisory guideline range. 7 See Sweeting, 437 F.3d at 1107. In light of the foregoing, the revocation of Reid’s supervised release and the sentence imposed by the district court are AFFIRMED. 8