[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
Nos. 09-14625 and 09-14626 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JUNE 3, 2010
Non-Argument Calendar
JOHN LEY
________________________
CLERK
D. C. Docket Nos. 07-00054-CR-J-20MCR,
04-00374-CR-J-20MCR
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
TROY SLAY,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(June 3, 2010)
Before CARNES, PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Troy Slay appeals his sentence of 60 months of imprisonment after the
revocation of his supervised release. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). Slay argues that the
district court failed to provide a written statement to explain why it varied upward
from the guideline range. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2). We affirm.
We review de novo whether a district court complied with section 3553(c).
United States v. Bonilla, 463 F.3d 1176, 1181 (11th Cir. 2006). An error in
sentencing is reviewed for harmless error. Under that standard, after “viewing the
proceedings in their entirety, . . . [if] the error did not affect the sentence or had but
very slight effect,” we will affirm the sentence. United States v. Mathenia, 409
F.3d 1289, 1292 (11th Cir. 2005).
We need not decide whether the district court erred because any error in
failing to provide Slay a written statement is harmless. The district court explained
at Slay’s sentencing hearing that it varied upward to punish Slay for having
manipulated and deceived the prosecutor and the district court. Slay obtained
permission to associate with known felons ostensibly to assist law enforcement and
then used those contacts to distribute cocaine. Slay does not argue that the
explanation provided at his sentencing hearing was deficient or otherwise affected
his ability to appeal his sentence. Slay was not harmed by the lack of a written
statement.
Slay’s sentence is AFFIRMED.
2