Case: 16-15187 Date Filed: 05/23/2017 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
Nos. 16-15187; No. 16-15188
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket Nos. 2:13-cr-00075-WHA-CSC-1,
2:13-cr-00076-WHA-CSC-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
SHERMAN TERRY,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Alabama
________________________
(May 23, 2017)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Sherman Terry appeals his sentence of 48 months of imprisonment
Case: 16-15187 Date Filed: 05/23/2017 Page: 2 of 4
following the revocation of his supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). Terry
argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. We affirm.
A probation officer petitioned the district court to revoke Terry’s supervised
release, which he was serving as part of the sentences that he received, in one case,
for conspiring to launder money, wire fraud, and attempted wire fraud and, in a
separate case, for wire fraud. Terry pleaded no contest to violating his supervised
release by leaving Alabama without permission; violating Georgia law by
committing first degree forgery, identity fraud, possessing a vehicle with an altered
vehicle identification number, theft by deception, and theft by receiving a stolen
vehicle; and violating federal law by submitting a supervision report that contained
a false statement. The probation officer recommended that Terry receive
consecutive sentences totaling 48 months of imprisonment.
During the revocation hearing, the district court found that Terry committed
Grade B violations which, with a criminal history of I, resulted in an advisory
guideline range of four to ten months of imprisonment, U.S.S.G. §§ 7B1.1, 7B1.4,
and maximum statutory sentences of three years of imprisonment, 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(e)(3). The district court admitted into evidence an investigative report
stating that Terry, within two months of his release from prison, used shell
companies to perpetrate fraudulent activities. The report also stated that Terry
acquired two false driver’s licenses, fraudulent credit cards, and posted information
2
Case: 16-15187 Date Filed: 05/23/2017 Page: 3 of 4
about a business on Craigslist. The district court “considered and consulted
Chapter 7 of the sentencing guidelines[,] . . . the reasonableness of a sentence
through the lens of Section 3553[,] and . . . the recommendation of the probation
officer” and sentenced Terry to 36 months in his conspiracy case and to a
consecutive term of 12 months in his wire fraud case.
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it varied upward from the
guideline range and sentenced Terry to 48 months of imprisonment. Terry argues
that his sentence is based solely on his new criminal charges, but the district court
“considered . . . [Terry’s] history and characteristics and [the similarity of his new
and] original charges”; his resumption of criminal activity; his pocketing “$15,500
in cash . . . [for] a stolen car”; and his “brazen” recidivism “on supervision, under
the very nose and eyes of the U.S. Government.” The district court stated that
Terry’s “continue[d] . . . engage[ment] in the same . . . fraudulent and deceptive
. . . [and] theft activit[ies]” and his refusal “to comply with the conditions of
supervised release” warranted a “stiff sentence.” The district court reasonably
determined that Terry’s sentences were necessary “to reflect [Terry’s] history and
characteristics, to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct, and to protect the
public from further [similar] crimes.” See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3583(c), 3553(a). Based on
those factors, the district court also reasonably decided to accept the probation
officer’s recommendation that Terry’s sentences run consecutively. Id. § 3584(b).
3
Case: 16-15187 Date Filed: 05/23/2017 Page: 4 of 4
Although Terry had been gainfully employed and had familial obligations, the
district court determined that Terry’s “conduct [had] proven that [he did] not plan
to comply with the conditions of supervised release because [he] continue[d] to
involve [him]self in criminal activities in the very same nature of what [he was]
sentenced for in the first place.” Terry’s sentence is reasonable.
We AFFIRM Terry’s sentence.
4