[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
June 1, 2007
No. 06-14272 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 99-08024-CR-DTKH
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
EDDIE ROBINSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(June 1, 2007)
Before BIRCH, BLACK and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Eddie Robinson appeals the district court’s revocation of his second term of
supervised release and imposition of a 30-month sentence. Robinson asserts the
evidence did not support the revocation of his supervised release due to its
contradictory nature. He also contends his sentence is unreasonable. We address
each issue in turn.
I.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Robinson’s
supervised release. See United States v. Frazier, 26 F.3d 110, 112 (11th Cir. 1994)
(stating that a district court’s decision regarding revocation of supervised release is
reviewed for abuse of discretion). A mandatory condition of Robinson’s
supervised release was that he “not commit another federal, state or local crime.”
The evidence presented at the probable cause hearing established that (1) three
witnesses testified to seeing Robinson holding a gun; (2) two witnesses testified
that Robinson dragged Ventras Davis with his car; and (3) the responding police
officer testified that Davis was distraught and told him that her ex-boyfriend,
Robinson, had tried to grab her with his car and pointed a firearm at her. Even
though the witnesses presented different versions of exactly where Robinson stood
as he held the gun and the gun’s color, this Court gives deference to the district
court’s factual findings unless clearly erroneous. See United States v. Almand, 992
F.2d 316, 318 (11th Cir. 1993). The district court specifically found that Robinson
2
pulled a gun. Moreover, the district court had to weigh the testimony of Davis,
Antonio McWilliams, India Pressley, and Timothy Walsh against that of Robinson,
and this Court generally will not review the factfinder’s credibility determination.
See United States v. Copeland, 20 F.3d 412, 413 (11th Cir. 1994).
Thus, despite the contradictory nature regarding the circumstances of the
incident, it was not clearly erroneous to find that Robinson pulled a gun, and
thereby violated the terms of his supervised release. As evidence establishing guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt is not required to revoke a defendant’s supervised
release, the district court did not abuse its discretion in choosing to do so. See 18
U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3).
II.
“Under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), a district court may, upon finding by a
preponderance of the evidence that a defendant has violated a condition of
supervised release, revoke the term of supervised release and impose a term of
imprisonment after considering certain factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).”
United States v. Sweeting, 437 F.3d 1105, 1107 (11th Cir. 2006). In sentencing a
defendant, the factors that a district court should consider include: (1) the nature
and circumstances of the offense; (2) the history and characteristics of the
defendant; (3) the need for the sentence to protect the public, to afford adequate
3
deterrence, and provide the defendant with needed medical care or correctional
treatment; and (4) the pertinent Sentencing Commission policy statements. See 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a).
The district court’s sentence reflected consideration of several of the
relevant factors under § 3553(a). The court stated it had considered the § 3553(a)
factors, and the court explicitly mentioned Robinson’s history of violence with his
girlfriends and his temper. Thus, the court explicitly considered the history and
characteristics of the defendant and the nature of the offense. Additionally, the
Guidelines range was 24-30 months’ imprisonment. The court took account of the
§ 3553(a) factors and sentenced Robinson at the high end of the relevant
Guidelines range. We conclude Robinson’s sentence is reasonable. See Sweeting,
437 F.3d at 1106-07 (holding sentences imposed for violation of supervised
release are reviewed for reasonableness).
AFFIRMED.
4