[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 09-12281 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JULY 12, 2010
Non-Argument Calendar
JOHN LEY
________________________
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 93-00213-CR-CB
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
GERRY SANDERS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Alabama
_________________________
(July 12, 2010)
Before BLACK, BARKETT and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Gerry Sanders appeals his 18-month sentence imposed for violating the
terms of his supervised release by committing a new crime, 18 U.S.C. § 3583.
Sanders asserts (1) the district court failed to elicit any objections to its findings of
fact and conclusions of law following the imposition of his sentence, and (2) his
sentence is procedurally and substantively unreasonable. After review, we affirm
Sanders’ sentence.
I.
Sanders contends his sentence should be vacated and his case remanded to
allow the parties to articulate their objections because the record is insufficient for
this Court to engage in meaningful review of Sanders’ sentence.1
After imposing sentence in a supervised release revocation hearing, a district
court should elicit fully-articulated objections to the court’s findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and the manner in which the sentence was imposed. United
States v. Campbell, 473 F.3d 1345, 1346, 1348 (11th Cir. 2007) (holding the court
has not elicited fully articulated objections when it merely asks if there is
“anything else?” and neither party responds with objections). Where a district
1
Ordinarily, we review a sentence imposed following the revocation of supervised release
for reasonableness. United States v. Sweeting, 437 F.3d 1105, 1106-07 (11th Cir. 2006).
However, when the district court fails to elicit objections after imposing sentence, we will
consider de novo the legality of the sentence imposed. United States v. Campbell, 473 F.3d
1345, 1348 (11th Cir. 2007).
2
court fails to elicit objections after imposing a sentence, we will vacate the
sentence and remand to the district court to give the parties an opportunity to
present their objections, unless the record on appeal is sufficient to enable review.
Id. at 1347.
Further, in a revocation of supervised release case, the court must consider
the applicable sentencing range. Campbell, 473 F.3d at 1348. However, “because
the Guidelines have always been advisory for sentences imposed upon revocation
of supervised release, it is sufficient that there be some indication that the district
court was aware of and considered the Guidelines[.]” Id. at 1349 (citation and
quotation omitted). We held the record was insufficient for meaningful appellate
review where the district court never mentioned the Guidelines range or the
criminal classification of the violation on which the revocation and, in turn, the
Guidelines range, was based. Id. at 1349.
Because the district court merely asked whether there was “anything
further?” after imposing Sanders’ sentence, the district court failed to elicit fully-
articulated objections. See Campbell, 473 F.3d at 1348. However, unlike in
Campbell, the record is sufficient to establish the district court was aware of and
considered the Guidelines range. After the Government informed the court the
Guidelines range was 6-12 months, the court confirmed both the statutory
3
maximum and the Guidelines range. Moreover, as discussed below, the record on
appeal is otherwise sufficient to enable us to review Sanders’ sentence. Therefore,
we will not remand for resentencing.
II.
Sanders also asserts his sentence is procedurally and substantively
unreasonable because the district court gave no explanation for why it imposed an
above-Guidelines sentence.2
There is no requirement the district court explicitly discuss its consideration
of each of the § 3553(a) factors on the record, as long as the sentencing judge
“set[s] forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that he has considered the parties'
arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal decisionmaking
authority.” Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2468 (2007) (citation omitted).
However, where the district court sentences the defendant outside of the
Guidelines, it commits a procedural error if it fails to adequately explain why it has
done so. Id.; 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2).
The district court’s comments during the sentencing hearing reflect its
consideration of several of the § 3553(a) factors and its reasoning for imposing an
above-Guidelines sentence. The district court commented that Sanders’ instances
2
The procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence is reviewed for abuse of
discretion. United States v. Livesay, 587 F.3d 1274, 1278 (11th Cir. 2009).
4
of domestic violence were more than “scratches and bruises,” noted domestic
violence was a particularly insidious crime, and recited Sanders had been arrested
three times for domestic violence and pled guilty twice. These comments are
relevant to a consideration of both the nature of the offense and the history and
characteristics of the defendant. The court’s comment Sanders needed to be
punished for his most recent act of domestic violence indicates these
considerations were relevant to its determination of a reasonable sentence. The
record also reflects the district court did consider the Guidelines range and
statutory maximum. Finally, the court’s recommendation Sanders receive mental
health treatment reflects its consideration to provide Sanders with needed medical
care. Because the record reflects the district court considered several of the
relevant § 3553(a) factors, its explanation for Sanders’s above-Guidelines sentence
was not an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
5