Opinion ID: 77575
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Calculation and Consideration of the Guidelines Range

Text: 12 Campbell next argues that the district court failed to consider the Guidelines and his advisory sentencing range under the Guidelines. The Government counters that the district court did consider the Guidelines, and that, in any event, Campbell waived this argument on appeal by failing to raise it during the revocation hearing. Because we conclude that the district court violated Jones by failing to elicit objections after imposing the sentence, we conclude that Campbell has not waived this argument, and we consider de novo the legality of his sentence. United States v. Aimufa, 122 F.3d 1376, 1378 (11th Cir.1997). 13 In United States v. White, 416 F.3d 1313, 1318 (11th Cir.2005), this court stated that upon determining that a defendant violated a condition of supervised release, the district court may revoke the term of supervision and impose a term of imprisonment after considering various factors set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Id. (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3)). One of the factors a court must consider . . . is . . . the sentencing range established [by] . . . the applicable guidelines or policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission. White, 416 F.3d at 1318 (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(4)) (emphasis added). For sentences imposed upon revocation of supervised release, the recommended sentencing range is based on the classification of the conduct that resulted in the revocation and the criminal history category applicable at the time the defendant originally was sentenced to the term of supervision. U.S.S.G. §§ 7B1.1, 7B1.4. But because the Guidelines have always been advisory for sentences imposed upon revocation of supervised release, White, 416 F.3d at 1318, it is sufficient that there be some indication that the district court was aware of and considered the Guidelines, United States v. Aguillard, 217 F.3d 1319, 1320 (11th Cir.2000), which requires the court to consider the sentencing range established under the Guidelines. White, 416 F.3d at 1318 (emphasis added). 14 Here, the district court never explicitly mentioned Campbell's advisory Guidelines range during the revocation hearing. 2 Indeed, the district court never said the word Guidelines during the entire hearing. Moreover, although the advisory range is based on, inter alia, the classification of the revocation-producing conduct, see U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1, the district court never mentioned the criminal classification of the crime for which Campbell's supervised release was revoked. Hence, we cannot determine from the record whether the district court considered the sentencing range established by the Guidelines or the policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission. See White, 416 F.3d at 1318.