[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 09-16350 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
AUGUST 6, 2010
Non-Argument Calendar
JOHN LEY
________________________
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 99-00034-CR-CDL-4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LARRY N. GREEN,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
_________________________
(August 6, 2010)
Before BLACK, CARNES and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Larry N. Green appeals his 14-month prison sentence, which was imposed
for violating the conditions of his supervised release. On appeal, Green argues his
sentence is unreasonable because the district court failed to adequately consider his
mental health status and failed to specify its rationale for the sentence. After
review, we affirm Green’s sentence.1
A sentence may be procedurally unreasonable if, inter alia, the sentencing
court fails to consider the § 3553(a) sentencing factors or fails to explain the
chosen sentence adequately. Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007).
The district court need not discuss or explicitly state each factor on the record, and
an acknowledgment by the court that it has considered the defendant’s arguments
and the § 3553(a) factors will suffice. United States v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319,
1324 (11th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2848 (2009). A sentence is
substantively unreasonable “if it does not achieve the purposes of sentencing stated
in § 3553(a).” United States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179, 1191 (11th Cir. 2008)
(quotation omitted). We generally “expect a sentence within the Guidelines range
to be reasonable.” United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir. 2005).
1
We review a sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release for
reasonableness. United States v. Sweeting, 437 F.3d 1105, 1106-07 (11th Cir. 2006). We review
whether the sentence is reasonable under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States,
128 S. Ct. 586, 594 (2007).
2
At the revocation hearing, the district court specifically considered the
relevant § 3553(a) factors and explained its rationale for the chosen sentence. The
record belies Green’s contention that the district court did not properly consider his
mental health when fashioning his sentence, as the district court explicitly
instructed Green to participate in a mental health treatment program.
Consequently, Green’s sentence was not procedurally unreasonable.
Green’s within-guidelines sentence is also substantively reasonable. Green
used cocaine multiple times in violation of the terms of his supervised release. In
light of these violations, the court imposed the sentence “to maintain respect for the
law and to make it clear . . . that . . . supervised release is a serious component of
any sentence.” The § 3553(a) factors supported Green’s sentence, and the district
court did not make a clear error of judgment when it weighed them.
AFFIRMED.
3