Court Opinion

ID: 9365539
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-24 15:01:01.415331+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:46.138969
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12924    Document: 34-1     Date Filed: 01/24/2023   Page: 1 of 7

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-12924
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiff-Appellee,
       versus
       RONALD J. ANDERSON, III,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Middle District of Florida
                 D.C. Docket No. 8:15-cr-00024-VMC-TGW-1
                           ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-12924        Document: 34-1        Date Filed: 01/24/2023        Page: 2 of 7

       2                         Opinion of the Court                     22-12924

       Before BRANCH, LAGOA, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Ronald Anderson, III appeals his sentence of 30 days’
       imprisonment followed by 59 months’ supervised release that the
       district court imposed after revoking his supervised release.
       Anderson argues that the new sentence is unlawful because the
       district court failed to reduce his term of supervised release to
       account for the time he already served in prison. This argument,
       however, ignores that Anderson never served any time in prison.
       Thus, there is no reduction to be made, and the district court did
       not err. We affirm.
                                  I.      Background
              After Anderson pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to
       commit wire fraud and bank fraud, the district court adjudicated
       him guilty and, in an amended judgment,1 sentenced him to “time
       served” imprisonment to be followed by 60 months’ supervised
       release. However, Anderson had not yet served prison time for the
       fraud, so the “time served” imprisonment designation was
       effectively no prison time at all. 2 The district court explained that

       1 The district court initially sentenced Anderson to 21 months’ imprisonment
       to be followed by 60 months’ supervised release before entering its amended
       judgment that zeroed out the imprisonment term.
       2The record indicates that Anderson was in jail for at most one day following
       his initial arrest: “On February 5, 2015, [Anderson was] arrested and released
       on a $50,000 non-surety appearance bond with supervision by pretrial
USCA11 Case: 22-12924        Document: 34-1        Date Filed: 01/24/2023        Page: 3 of 7

       22-12924                  Opinion of the Court                              3

       it wanted him to “avoid prison so that he could be with his family
       and continue working to pay his restitution obligation.” Anderson
       thanked the district court for its leniency by violating his supervised
       release. 3
              To address Anderson’s violation, the district court revoked
       his initial supervised release and imposed a new, substantially
       similar, sentence—“time served” imprisonment to be followed by
       59 months’ supervised release. Anderson again violated his
       supervised release. 4
              Several years later, in light of Anderson’s repeated
       violations, the district court held a supervised release revocation
       hearing. At that hearing, the district court expressed its
       disappointment that Anderson continued to exploit its leniency.
       Importantly, the district court stressed that—due to its leniency—
       Anderson had never been to prison:
               [District Court]: Remind me, Mr. Anderson, did you
               go to prison at all on this?
               [Anderson]: No ma’am. . . .

       services.” There is no evidence in the record that Anderson spent time in jail
       on any day other than February 5, 2015.
       3 Specifically, Anderson “[f]ail[ed] to make restitution in violation of the
       Court’s Order,” “[f]ail[ed] to answer truthfully,” and “[f]ail[ed] to disclose
       financial information.”
       4 Specifically,
                     Anderson “fail[ed] to submit a monthly report” and “fail[ed] to
       make restitution.”
USCA11 Case: 22-12924      Document: 34-1       Date Filed: 01/24/2023   Page: 4 of 7

       4                          Opinion of the Court             22-12924

              ...
             [District Court]: Okay. I didn’t think you went to
             prison. I thought I gave you a break. . . . I’m going to
             read to you what the probation officer said here.
             They said: Mr. Anderson’s amended judgment in
             2015 spared him from serving a term of incarceration,
             as he was sentenced to time served followed by a five
             year term of supervised release. . . .
               Because there were difficulties calculating the amount of
       restitution still owed by Anderson, the court continued the hearing
       to a later date.
              Before the final revocation hearing, Anderson filed a
       sentencing memorandum. Included was a letter from Anderson
       that thanked the district court for its leniency: “[Y]ou could have
       given jail time instead of this gift you had chosen to graciously give
       [in the previous sentencing orders].”
             In the end, the district court again revoked Anderson’s
       supervised release and issued a new sentence: 30 days’
       imprisonment to be followed by 59 months’ supervised release.
       The district court stressed that jail time was now necessary because
       Anderson continued to “neglect[] his responsibilities” despite being
       shown “so much mercy.”
             Anderson appeals his sentence.
                            II.      Standard of Review
USCA11 Case: 22-12924      Document: 34-1     Date Filed: 01/24/2023     Page: 5 of 7

       22-12924               Opinion of the Court                         5

               Normally we review the district court’s imposition of a
       supervised release sentence for abuse of discretion, United States v.
       Zinn, 321 F.3d 1084, 1087 (11th Cir. 2003), but if a defendant fails
       to state clearly the grounds for an objection to his sentence in the
       district court, we review for plain error, United States v.
       Vandergrift, 754 F.3d 1303, 1307 (11th Cir. 2014). Under plain error
       review, the defendant must show: (1) an error, (2) that was plain,
       and (3) that affected his substantial rights. Id.
              Anderson offered only a general objection to the district
       court: “Your Honor, just for the record, we’d object to the
       sentence.” He did not indicate the specific grounds for his
       objection; thus, plain error is the proper standard of review.
       Vandergrift, 754 F.3d at 1307.
                                III.   Discussion
              If a defendant violates his supervised release and is sentenced
       to imprisonment, a court can require “that the defendant be placed
       on a term of supervised release after imprisonment.” 18 U.S.C.
       § 3583(h). The new term of supervised release cannot exceed the
       statutory maximum term of supervised release for the defendant’s
       underlying conviction, id., which for Class B felonies is 60 months,
       id. § 3583(b)(1). Further, the “maximum allowable supervised
       release following multiple revocations must be reduced by the
       aggregate length of any terms of imprisonment that have been
       imposed upon revocation.” United States v. Mazarky, 499 F.3d
       1246, 1250 (11th Cir. 2007).
USCA11 Case: 22-12924          Document: 34-1           Date Filed: 01/24/2023           Page: 6 of 7

       6                            Opinion of the Court                         22-12924

              The calculation of Anderson’s maximum term of supervised
       release is simple: sixty months (for Anderson’s maximum term of
       supervised release for committing a Class B felony 5 under
       § 3583(b)(1)), minus one month (for the term of imprisonment
       required by the district court’s most recent sentencing order),
       minus zero months (for the amount of prison time Anderson has
       already served), for a total of fifty-nine months. The district court
       reached exactly this result when it imposed a sentence of 30 days’
       imprisonment to be followed by 59 months’ supervised release.
              Anderson argues on appeal that he must be credited for the
       prison time he already served. The problem for Anderson is that
       there is no evidence that his “time served” was anything more than
       no time at all.6 Indeed, the district court deliberately chose “time

       5 Anderson pleaded guilty to a Class B felony (conspiracy to commit wire fraud

       and bank fraud). See 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a)(2) (classifying an offense as a Class B
       felony if it “is not specifically classified by a letter grade in the section defining
       it” and “the maximum term of imprisonment authorized is . . . twenty-five
       years or more”); 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 1344 (defining the maximum prison terms
       for wire fraud that affects a financial institution and bank fraud, which define
       the penalties for the conspiracy crime that Anderson pleaded guilty to
       according to 18 U.S.C. § 1349, as “not more than 30 years”).
       6 Anderson’s counsel argues that a “time served” sentence implies that “Mr.
       Anderson served some time in prison,” but admits that “[c]ounsel could not
       glean from the record how much time Mr. Anderson served.” Counsel was
       unable to “glean” how much time Anderson served in jail because, as the
       district court noted: “He never went to jail. He never spent a day in jail other
       than when he was arrested.” As for his arrest, the record indicates that “[o]n
       February 5, 2015, [Anderson was] arrested and released on a $50,000 non-
       surety appearance bond with supervision by pretrial services.”
USCA11 Case: 22-12924         Document: 34-1        Date Filed: 01/24/2023         Page: 7 of 7

       22-12924                   Opinion of the Court                               7

       served” as the term of imprisonment to keep him out of jail. And,
       in the proceedings below, Anderson twice admitted that he never
       served any time in prison.7
             In sum, Anderson seeks credit for time he never served. We
       do not buy his argument. Instead, we conclude that the district
       court did not commit any error—much less a plain error—in his
       sentencing. See Vandergrift, 754 F.3d at 1307. As such, we affirm.
               AFFIRMED.

       7 The first admission was during the revocation hearing when he replied “[n]o
       ma’am” to the district court’s question “[r]emind me, Mr. Anderson, did you
       go to prison at all on this?” The second admission was in a formal letter to the
       court: “you could have given jail time instead [of being lenient].”