[DO NOT PUBLISH]
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`
`FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
`________________________
`
`No. 07-10432
`Non-Argument Calendar
`________________________
`
` FILED
`U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
`ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
`November 9, 2007
`THOMAS K. KAHN
`CLERK
`
`D. C. Docket No. 05-00241-CR-2-LSC-RRA
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`KEVIN A. STEVENS,
`
`
`Plaintiff-Appellee,
`
`versus
`
`Defendant-Appellant.
`
`________________________
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court
`for the Northern District of Alabama
`_________________________
`
`(November 9, 2007)
`
`Before BIRCH, DUBINA and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
`
`PER CURIAM:
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`
`FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
`________________________
`
`No. 07-10432
`Non-Argument Calendar
`________________________
`
` FILED
`U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
`ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
`November 9, 2007
`THOMAS K. KAHN
`CLERK
`
`D. C. Docket No. 05-00241-CR-2-LSC-RRA
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`KEVIN A. STEVENS,
`
`
`Plaintiff-Appellee,
`
`versus
`
`Defendant-Appellant.
`
`________________________
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court
`for the Northern District of Alabama
`_________________________
`
`(November 9, 2007)
`
`Before BIRCH, DUBINA and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
`
`PER CURIAM:
`
`
`
`Kevin A. Stevens appeals his sentence imposed for violating the terms and
`
`conditions of his supervised release. Stevens contends the district court erred by
`
`not providing an adequate statement of reasons for the imposition of a 24-month
`
`sentence, and that the sentence was unreasonable. We address his arguments in
`
`turn, and affirm Stevens’ sentence.
`
`I.
`
`Stevens asserts his sentence should be vacated and his case remanded for
`
`resentencing because the district court failed to state any specific reasons for the
`
`sentence it imposed, or why it imposed an above-Guidelines sentence, as required
`
`by 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2).
`
`We normally review “a district court’s decision to exceed the Chapter 7
`
`recommended guidelines range for an abuse of discretion.” United States v. Silva,
`1
`
`443 F.3d 795, 798 (11th Cir. 2006). We review de novo whether a district court
`
`1
` The district court committed a technical violation under United States v. Jones, 899 F.2d
`1097, 1102 (11th Cir. 1990), overruled in part on other grounds by United States v. Morrill, 984
`F.2d 1136, 1137 (11th Cir. 1993) (en banc), by failing to elicit objections after it imposed the
`sentence. The rule in Jones applies to supervised release revocation. See United States v. Campbell,
`473 F.3d 1345, 1348 (11th Cir. 2007). While Stevens did not specifically object that the district
`court failed to state the § 3553(a) factors or that it failed to state its reasons for exceeding the
`advisory Guidelines range, in light of the technical Jones violation, we overlook Stevens’ failure to
`raise these arguments. Id. In any event, Stevens’ arguments are meritless irrespective of the
`standard of review. Additionally, the record in this case is sufficient for meaningful appellate
`review. See id. at 1348 (stating we will not remand where appellant did not raise the Jones error on
`appeal and the record was sufficient for meaningful appellate review).
`
`2
`
`
`
`complied with 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c). United States v. Bonilla, 463 F.3d 1176, 1181
`
`(11th Cir. 2006).
`
`If the district court “finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the
`
`defendant violated a condition of supervised release,” it may revoke a term of
`
`supervised release, after considering factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1),
`
`(a)(2)(B)-(D), and (a)(4)-(7), and impose a sentence of imprisonment for the
`
`violation. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). The term imposed cannot exceed the statutory
`
`maximum, which is determined by grade of the felony offense that resulted in the
`
`term of supervised release. See id. Revocation of supervised release is mandatory,
`
`however, if, among other things, the defendant possesses a controlled substance in
`
`violation of the conditions of supervised release, refuses to comply with drug
`
`testing imposed as a condition of supervised release, or as a part of drug testing,
`
`tests positive for illegal controlled substances more than three times over the
`
`course of one year. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g)(1), (3), (4).
`
`In United States v. Brown, 224 F.3d 1237, 1241 (11th Cir. 2000), a case in
`
`which the district court exceeded the Chapter 7 recommended range in imposing a
`
`sentence, we held “[i]f supervised release is subsequently revoked under 18 U.S.C.
`
`§ 3583(e), the statute . . . requires that the § 3553(a) factors be considered.
`
`3
`
`
`
`However, when revocation of supervised release is mandatory under 18 U.S.C.
`
`§ 3583(g), the statute does not require consideration of the § 3553(a) factors.”
`
`Id. (citation and quotation omitted) (emphasis in original).
`
`The district court was required to revoke Stevens’s supervised release upon a
`
`finding that he either possessed a controlled substance, refused to comply with
`
`drug testing, or tested positive for drugs more than three times during the course of
`
`one year. At the revocation hearing, Stevens made several admissions regarding
`
`his drug use, including that he tested positive for cocaine twice in December 2006
`
`and in August 2005, he used cocaine a couple of days prior to testing positive in
`
`December 2006, and he missed “some” of his drug tests. Stevens was subject to
`
`mandatory revocation in light of these admissions, and the district court was not
`
`required to consider the § 3553(a) factors in imposing the term of imprisonment
`
`under § 3583(g).
`
`II.
`
`Stevens further asserts his sentence is unreasonable because the probation
`
`office recommended a sentence of only nine months and he merely tested positive
`
`for cocaine on a couple of occasions. Stevens acknowledges his sentence did not
`
`exceed the statutory maximum penalty, but asserts his sentence was unreasonable
`
`considering it was well above his recommended Guidelines range.
`
`4
`
`
`
`We review a sentence imposed upon the revocation of supervised release for
`
`reasonableness. United States v. Sweeting, 437 F.3d 1105, 1106-07 (11th Cir.
`
`2006). “[T]he party who challenges the sentence bears the burden of establishing
`
`that the sentence is unreasonable in the light of both [the] record and the factors in
`
`section 3553(a).” United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir. 2005).
`
`When reviewing a sentence for unreasonableness, we must evaluate whether the
`
`sentence achieves the purposes of sentencing stated in § 3553(a). United States v.
`
`Williams, 456 F.3d 1353, 1360-61 (11th Cir. 2006), cert. dismissed, 127 S. Ct.
`
`3040 (2007). Our evaluation must be made having regard for the factors listed in
`
`§ 3553(a) and the reasons for the particular sentence as stated by the district court.
`
`Id. at 1361.
`
`Relevant factors in determining the length of imprisonment upon revocation
`
`include the nature and circumstances of the offense; the history and characteristics
`
`of the defendant; the need for the sentence to afford adequate deterrence to
`
`criminal conduct, to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant, and to
`
`provide the defendant with medical care or other correctional treatment; the kinds
`
`of sentences available; and the applicable advisory Guidelines range. 18 U.S.C.
`
`§ 3553(a).
`
`5
`
`
`
`Stevens’ above-Guidelines sentence is reasonable. Stevens’ advisory-
`
`Guidelines range was 3 to 9 months’ imprisonment, and he was sentenced to 24
`
`months’ imprisonment. Even though the district court was not required to do so, it
`
`considered the § 3553(a) factors. The district court expressly considered Stevens’
`
`history and characteristics by acknowledging he had a drug problem and noting he
`
`repeatedly used drugs, even though he worked regularly. The court also
`
`considered the need for incarceration and to provide adequate deterrence in light of
`
`its comments that his previous five-year prison term did not “do [him] any good.”
`
`The court also considered the kinds of sentences available by noting the maximum
`
`penalty for Stevens’ violations was 36 months’ imprisonment and by indicating
`
`that it would, after the completion of Stevens’ 24-month prison sentence, reinstate
`
`the drug treatment program that was conducted by the Probation Office.
`
`Furthermore, Stevens’ sentence is within the applicable statutory maximum, and is
`
`reasonable in light of the evidence of his repeated drug use while on supervised
`
`release. Accordingly, his sentence is reasonable.
`
`AFFIRMED.
`
`6
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
