Opinion ID: 204352
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Lifetime Supervised Release Term

Text: Mateo argues that his lifetime supervised release term is substantively unreasonable.6 At the outset, we note that this sentencing issue falls within an exception to Mateo’s sentence appeal waiver because the district court’s supervised release term of life exceeded the advisory guidelines range of five years of supervised release.7 We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of discretion in light of the totality of the circumstances. Gall v. United States, 552 6 Mateo raises no procedural challenge to the imposition of his supervised release term. 7 Mateo also challenges his designation as a career offender. Mateo’s sentence appeal waiver precludes review of this issue because it does not fall within any of the appeal waiver provision’s exceptions. Mateo’s argument that the appeal waiver is unenforceable due to his diminished capacity is without merit. The district court specifically questioned Mateo about the sentence appeal waiver, and Mateo confirmed he had discussed the appeal waiver with his attorney, understood he was giving up his right to appeal his sentence and was doing so freely and voluntarily. See United States v. Bushert, 997 F.2d 1343, 1350-51 (11th Cir. 1993). 17 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). The party challenging the sentence bears the burden of establishing that the sentence is unreasonable in light of both the record and the § 3553(a) factors.8 United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir. 2005). Although “[s]entences outside the guidelines are not presumed to be unreasonable, . . . we may take the extent of any variance into our calculus.” United States v. Shaw, 560 F.3d 1230, 1237 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2847 (2009). However, we “must give due deference to the district court’s decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on the whole, justify the extent of the variance.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S. Ct. at 597. Here, Mateo has not met his burden to show that the lifetime term of supervised release was substantively unreasonable. Mateo has an extensive criminal history, with many of his offenses involving multiple codefendants. At sentencing, Mateo’s counsel argued that Mateo may have been manipulated by others to commit these prior offenses. Dr. Holmes’s evaluation did find that Mateo’s mental disability impaired his ability to reason, made him susceptible to 8 The § 3553(a) factors include: (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense; (3) the need for deterrence; (4) the need to protect the public; (5) the need to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training or medical care; (6) the kinds of sentences available; (7) the Sentencing Guidelines range; (8) pertinent policy statements of the Sentencing Commission; (9) the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities; and (10) the need to provide restitution to victims. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 18 being manipulated by others and significantly contributed to his commission of the instant offense. And the district court left open the possibility that it would reduce or terminate supervised release if Mateo responded well to counseling. Furthermore, the lifetime supervised release term was entirely consistent with the district court’s grant of a U.S.S.G. § 5K2.13 downward departure for diminished capacity (an 180-month sentence, which was a departure from the guidelines range of 262 to 327 months). “Supervised release fulfills rehabilitative ends, distinct from those served by incarceration.” United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012, 1025 (11th Cir. 2005) (quotation marks omitted). Thus, the district court could reasonably determine that Mateo’s mental disability lessened Mateo’s culpability and the resulting need for incarceration, while at the same time increasing Mateo’s need for monitoring and rehabilitation. See id. at 1025; see also United States v. Johnson, 529 U.S. 53, 59, 120 S. Ct. 1114, 1119 (2000) (providing that the “primary goal of supervised release is to ease the defendant’s transition into the community after the service of a long prison term . . . or to provide rehabilitation to a defendant who . . . still needs supervision and training programs after release” (citation and brackets omitted)). Given the need to protect the public and provide supervision and treatment to Mateo, the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a lifetime term of supervised release. 19 AFFIRMED. 20