[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JAN 27, 2010
No. 09-12497 JOHN LEY
Non-Argument Calendar ACTING CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 98-00190-CR-01-JOF-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
QUINTON GARDNER,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
_________________________
(January 27, 2010)
Before EDMONDSON, BIRCH and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Quinton Gardner appeals his sentence of 18 months of imprisonment for
violating the terms of his supervised release. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). Gardner
argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because it was imposed
consecutively to his 151-month sentence for a bank robbery that was used to
revoke his supervised release. We affirm.
In 1998, Gardner pleaded guilty to two counts of bank robbery. 18 U.S.C. §
2113(a). The district court sentenced Gardner to 66 months of imprisonment
followed by 36 months of supervised release. On October 20, 2005, Gardner was
released from prison, and in early December 2005, he robbed two banks.
The government petitioned to revoke Gardner’s supervised release. The
government alleged that Gardner violated three conditions of his release: Gardner
failed to participate in mental health counseling and take his medication; he failed
to report to his probation officer within 72 hours after he was released from prison;
and Gardner had been arrested for robbing two banks.
Gardner was indicted for two counts of bank robbery and assault with a
dangerous weapon during the robberies. Id. §§ 2113(a), (d). Gardner later pleaded
guilty to one count of unarmed bank robbery. Id. § 2113(a). The district court
sentenced Gardner to 151 months of imprisonment.
At a revocation hearing, Gardner admitted violating the three conditions of
his supervised release. The district court advised Gardner that he faced a sentence
2
between 18 and 24 months of imprisonment, and Gardner requested that the court
run his sentence concurrent with his sentence of 151 months of imprisonment.
Gardner denied robbing the bank, argued no physical evidence tied him to the
crime, and asked the district court to “drop[]” his conviction to “panhandling.”
The district court stated it was concerned about “what to do with [Gardner]
because [he] couldn’t be trusted to be on supervised release.” The court expressed
frustration with Gardner’s “immediate” commission of another bank robbery and
his denial of guilt, and stated there was a need to satisfy the “goal of
incapacitation.” The district court sentenced Gardner to 18 months of
imprisonment “to follow the sentence imposed in the bank robbery case.”
We review a sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release for
reasonableness. United States v. Velasquez Velasquez, 524 F.3d 1248, 1252 (11th
Cir. 2008). “‘The reasonableness of a final sentence is reviewed only for an abuse
of discretion.’” United States v. Docampo, 573 F.3d 1091, 1096 (11th Cir. 2009)
(quoting United States v. Williams, 526 F.3d 1312, 1321 (11th Cir. 2008)). “[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).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by ordering that Gardner’s
3
sentence for violating his supervised release run consecutive to the term imposed
for the bank robbery. Although Gardner had pleaded guilty to bank robbery, he
denied his guilt at his revocation hearing. The district court reasonably concluded
that a sentence of 169 months of imprisonment was necessary to deter Gardner
from future similar crimes, reflect the seriousness of his offenses, promote respect
for the law, and provide a just punishment. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a); U.S.S.G. §
7B1.3(f); Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46, 128 S. Ct. 586, 594 (2007).
Gardner complains that the district court “placed too much emphasis on
incapacitation,” but “‘we will not substitute our judgment in weighing the relevant
factors.” United States v. Amedeo, 487 F.3d 823, 832 (11th Cir. 2007) (quoting
United States v. Williams, 456 F.3d 1353, 1363 (11th Cir. 2006)). Gardner’s
sentence is reasonable.
Gardner’s sentence is AFFIRMED.
4