[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
June 22, 2006
No. 05-14261 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 95-00439-CR-KMM
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
GREGORY DENNIS DAVIS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(June 22, 2006)
Before TJOFLAT, ANDERSON and BIRCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
On November 30, 1995, the district court sentenced appellant – on a plea of
guilty to possession of cocaine with intent to distribute – to a prison term of 80
months, to be followed a five-year term of supervised release. Appellant began his
supervised release on November 15, 2001. On August 10, 2004, the district court’s
probation office petitioned the court to issue a summons for appellant because he
had violated the conditions of supervised release; among other things, he had
possessed and used marijuana and committed child abuse and domestic battery.
On July 21 and 22, 2004, the court held a revocation hearing. Appellant
admitted the marijuana allegation, but contested the allegations of child abuse and
domestic battery. After hearing evidence regarding those allegations, the court
upheld them, revoked appellant’s supervised release, and sentenced him to a prison
term of 46 months. He now appeals his sentence, contending that it is
unreasonable.
That the district court revoked appellant’s supervised release on the grounds
presented for revocation does not concern us because the evidence fully supported
the court’s action. What troubles us is that the court, in sentencing appellant at the
top of the Guidelines sentence range, neither articulated a reason for its imposition
of the prison term nor indicated that it had considered the sentencing objectives set
out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Under these circumstances, we are unable to assess the
reasonableness of appellant’s sentence.
2
We therefore remand the case with the instruction that the court consult the §
3553(a) objectives and articulate the reason(s) for the sentence it imposed.
VACATED and REMANDED, with instructions.
3