Case: 17-14881 Date Filed: 05/23/2018 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-14881
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:08-cr-14014-JEM-2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
REX PALMER ALEXANDER,
Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(May 23, 2018)
Before JULIE CARNES, JILL PRYOR and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 17-14881 Date Filed: 05/23/2018 Page: 2 of 5
Rex Palmer Alexander appeals the sentence a district court imposed when he
violated the conditions of his supervised release. After careful review, we affirm.
Alexander completed a term of incarceration on drug-related charges and
began a six year term of supervised release. One condition of Alexander’s release,
based on his history of drug addiction, was that he undergo drug screening. In the
months that followed, Alexander continued to display signs of substance abuse; in
response, the district court modified the conditions of his release three times,
adding conditions that Alexander participate in a cognitive behavioral therapy
program (which he completed) and a residential drug treatment program.
Alexander’s difficulties persisted, and the probation office petitioned the
district court for revocation of his supervised release. The probation office alleged
that Alexander had tested positive for methamphetamine ten times between April
and June 2017 and had failed to participate in the residential drug treatment
program (Alexander had left treatment after a few days). At initial proceedings
before a magistrate judge, Alexander requested that he be placed in a faith-based
residential drug treatment program rather than detained in a carceral environment.
He acknowledged, however, that the treatment program was operated by
unlicensed drug counselors. The magistrate judge denied the request, and the
district court affirmed.
2
Case: 17-14881 Date Filed: 05/23/2018 Page: 3 of 5
The district court thereafter conducted an evidentiary hearing at which
Alexander admitted to the violations. After adjudicating him in violation of the
terms of his supervised release, the district court calculated an advisory guidelines
range of 12 to 18 months’ imprisonment. Alexander agreed with the calculation
but asserted several factors in mitigation of the sentence he faced. He argued that
he had gone without any violation of supervised release for more than 18 months
before testing positive for methamphetamine. He acknowledged that he had a drug
addiction program and that he needed treatment. He said his relapse was
precipitated by stress associated with the death of his father and the impending
arrival of his first child. He explained that he left the residential drug treatment
program because people in the program were actively using drugs and offering
drugs to him.
The district court imposed a sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment. The
district court explained that Alexander’s multiple positive drug tests were troubling
and opined that Alexander “[didn’t] do supervised release very well.” Doc. 300 at
5. 1 Given “the statements [sic] of all the parties”—including Alexander’s, in
which he expressed remorse for his drug use and resolve to end it—and “the
information contained in the violation report,” which detailed Alexander’s multiple
1
“Doc. #” refers to the numbered entry on the district court’s docket.
3
Case: 17-14881 Date Filed: 05/23/2018 Page: 4 of 5
positive drug tests, the court “determined that a sentence within the guideline range
[was] appropriate.” Id. at 9-10.
On appeal, Alexander challenges the substantive reasonableness of this
sentence. We review the reasonableness of a sentence, including one imposed
upon the revocation of supervised release, for an abuse of discretion. United States
v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1188-89 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc); United States v.
Sweeting, 437 F.3d 1105, 1106-07 (11th Cir. 2006). Although a district court
imposing a sentence for violating terms of supervised release generally must
consider the factors delineated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a),2 this Court has held that
where revocation of supervised release is mandatory, the district court is not
required to consider the § 3553(a) factors in imposing a sentence. United States v.
Brown, 224 F.3d 1237, 1241 (11th Cir. 2000), abrogated in part on other grounds
by Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319 (2011).
Revocation of supervised release was mandatory in Alexander’s case
because he violated a condition of his supervised release by “test[ing] positive for
illegal controlled substances more than 3 times over the course of 1 year.” 18
U.S.C. § 3583(g)(4). Thus, the district court was not required to consider the
§ 3553(a) factors. Brown, 224 F.3d at 1241. The district court was, however,
2
These include the nature and circumstances of the offense and history and
characteristics of the defendant; the need for the sentence imposed to afford adequate deterrence
to criminal conduct, to protect the public from further crimes by the defendant, and to provide
the defendant with needed educational or vocational training; and the kinds of sentences
available and established sentencing ranges. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1)-(4).
4
Case: 17-14881 Date Filed: 05/23/2018 Page: 5 of 5
required to “consider whether the availability of appropriate substance abuse
treatment programs, or [Alexander’s] current or past participation in such
programs, warrant[ed] an exception” to the mandatory revocation rule. 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(d). Considering the record as a whole, it is apparent that the district court
complied with this requirement. The district court repeatedly modified the terms
of Alexander’s supervised release to address his substance abuse and treatment
needs, including by requiring him to complete cognitive behavioral therapy and a
residential drug treatment program. These attempts reflect the district court’s
careful consideration of substance abuse treatment programs and Alexander’s past
participation in them before imposing a term of incarceration. It is true that the
district court denied Alexander’s request to be placed in a faith-based residential
treatment program. But given Alexander’s repeated positive drug tests and
acknowledgement that the counselors at his desired treatment center were
unlicensed, we can discern no abuse of discretion in the district court’s refusal to
grant Alexander’s request.
Because the district court was not required to consider the § 3553(a) factors
and the record makes clear that it considered drug treatment programs as a possible
exception to revocation of supervised release, we affirm the 12-month sentence the
district court imposed.
AFFIRMED.
5