Court Opinion

ID: 9556191
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-16 16:01:40.588645+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:22.194119
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-13540    Document: 23-1     Date Filed: 08/16/2023   Page: 1 of 4

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-13540
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       KYLE GEOFFREY SANDLER,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Middle District of Alabama
                 D.C. Docket No. 3:18-cr-00342-WKW-KFP-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-13540      Document: 23-1     Date Filed: 08/16/2023     Page: 2 of 4

       2                      Opinion of the Court                 22-13540

       Before ROSENBAUM, JILL PRYOR, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Kyle Sandler appeals his twenty-three-month imprisonment
       sentence, imposed on revocation of supervised release. On appeal,
       he argues that the district court abused its discretion in imposing a
       substantively unreasonable sentence by varying upward from the
       guidelines range by fourteen months. We disagree and therefore
       affirm Sandler’s sentence.
                                      I.

              We review the reasonableness of a sentence imposed on rev-
       ocation of supervised release under a deferential abuse of discretion
       standard. United States v. Vandergrift, 754 F.3d 1303, 1307 (11th Cir.
       2014); Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The party chal-
       lenging the sentence bears the burden to demonstrate that the sen-
       tence is unreasonable based on the record and the 18 U.S.C.
       § 3553(a) factors. United States v. Tome, 611 F.3d 1371, 1378 (11th
       Cir. 2010).
              The district court may revoke a defendant’s term of super-
       vised release where it finds, by a preponderance of the evidence,
       that the defendant violated a condition of his supervised release. 18
       U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). The district court revoked Sandler’s supervised
       release after he pleaded guilty to violating two conditions of his su-
       pervised release, and the court found by a preponderance of the
       evidence that he violated a third. For a new sentence, the court
USCA11 Case: 22-13540       Document: 23-1       Date Filed: 08/16/2023      Page: 3 of 4

       22-13540                Opinion of the Court                            3

       noted that the guidelines advised three to nine months’ imprison-
       ment, but the statutory maximum was not more than two years
       for a defendant who originally committed a Class C felony, like
       Sandler. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3).
              Although the district court “must consider the advisory
       guideline range in making the sentencing decision,” the guidelines
       “do not control it.” United States v. Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d 1249,
       1258 (11th Cir. 2015) (citing United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 246
       (2005)). A sentence that varies upward from the guidelines “repre-
       sents a district court’s judgment that the combined force of the
       other [Section] 3553(a) factors are entitled to greater weight than
       the guidelines range.” Id. at 1259.
              That is exactly what the district court did here. The court
       explicitly stated it “considered all of the 3553(a) factors,” listing sev-
       eral that it weighed heavily in reaching its decision—i.e., Sandler’s
       history and characteristics, the need to promote respect for the law,
       the seriousness of Sandler’s conduct, the need to protect the public,
       and the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities. In addi-
       tion to Sandler’s multiple supervised release violations, Sandler’s
       probation officer described his “nonstop barrage of words and
       emails and text messages,” and how he believed some rules “didn’t
       apply to him.”
             The court commended several accomplishments Sandler
       achieved in prison but ultimately concluded, “This was not just one
       mistake” and “you’re not amenable to supervision because you’re
       going to do what you want.” The court stated it considered the
USCA11 Case: 22-13540      Document: 23-1     Date Filed: 08/16/2023     Page: 4 of 4

       4                      Opinion of the Court                 22-13540

       sentencing guidelines, but it determined that a twenty-three-
       month imprisonment sentence (a fourteen-month upward vari-
       ance), followed by no supervised release was the appropriate sen-
       tence for Sandler. The district court’s decision to weigh any of the
       Section 3553(a) factors more heavily than the guideline range was
       well within its discretion. See Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d at 1259. Ac-
       cordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing
       term of imprisonment that varied upward from the guidelines by
       fourteen months.
                                      II.

              We AFFIRM.