[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
June 29, 2006
No. 05-12163 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 96-00076-CR-FTM-29-DNF
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RODERICK NANCE,
a.k.a. Ra Ra,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(June 29, 2006)
Before CARNES, BARKETT and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Roderick Nance appeals his sentence following revocation of supervised
release, raising two issues. First, Nance argues that his term of supervised release
to follow his current incarceration is illegal. Second, Nance contends that the
district court did not consider the required factors in imposing the revocation
sentence.
Sentencing issues, such as this one, raised for the first time on appeal are
reviewed only for plain error. United States v. Chisholm, 73 F.3d 304, 307 (11th
Cir. 1996). This requires that the error be plain and that it affect substantial rights
and seriously implicate the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial
proceedings. United States v. Hansen, 262 F.3d 1217, 1248 (11th Cir. 2001).
Where the explicit language of a statute does not specifically resolve an issue, there
can be no plain error absent precedent from the Supreme Court or us directly
resolving it. United States v. Lejarde-Rada, 319 F.3d 1288, 1291 (11th Cir. 2003).
Because the maximum term of supervised release applicable to Nance’s statute of
conviction is life, his 33-month term of supervised release following his current
term of incarceration does not exceed the statutory maximum.
Nance also argues that the district court improperly imposed the revocation
sentence without considering the required factors as set forth in the Sentencing
Guidelines and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). In imposing a revocation sentence, a district
court is instructed to consider several factors: (1) the nature and circumstances of
the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need for the
2
sentence to (a) afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct; (b) protect the
public from further crimes of the defendant; and (c) provide the defendant with
needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional
treatment in the most effective manner; (3) the kinds of sentences and the
sentencing range established for the offense; (4) the policy statements of the
Sentencing Guidelines; (5) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities; and
(6) the need to provide restitution for any victims. 18 U.S.C. §§ 3583(e);
3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B), (C) and (D), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6), and (a)(7). The Sentencing
Guidelines here recommended a revocation sentence of 4 to 10 months’
incarceration. U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a).
The record shows that the district court was aware of the applicable
guideline range. The court here took into consideration the range of sentences
available, Nance’s history, his lack of success in ending his drug habit while on
release, and his need for more restrictive rehabilitation. In short, the district court
did not commit error, plain, invited, or otherwise, in imposing Nance’s revocation
sentence.
AFFIRMED.
3