[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 08-16226 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JUNE 9, 2009
Non-Argument Calendar
THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 92-00112-CR-CDL-4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MARVIN T. BROOKS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
_________________________
(June 9, 2009)
Before TJOFLAT, BLACK and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
On December 17, 1992, appellant, having been found guilty by a jury on two
counts of a three-count indictment, i.e., aggravated sexual assault and entering a
dwelling with intent to commit aggravated sexual abuse, was sentenced to
concurrent prison terms of 168 months and a five-year term of supervised release.
In June 2007, while on supervised release, his probation officer petitioned the court
to revoke his release on five grounds. He admitted the grounds, and the district
court sentenced him to prison for twelve months, followed by two years of
supervised release.
In August 2008, appellant having served his prison term, the probation
officer again petitioned the court to revoke supervised release, citing two
violations: appellant left the judicial district and committed the offenses of felony
shoplifting and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The district court
revoked the supervised release and determined that the Guidelines sentence range
called for a prison term of eight to fourteen months. Due to appellant’s continued
failure to abide by the terms of supervised release and to protect the public, the
court concluded that such sentence range was inadequate and sentenced appellant
to a prison term of forty-eight months. He now appeals the sentence.
Appellant contends that the sentence is unreasonable in light of the
sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), that it was greater than necessary to
achieve the § 3553(a) objectives. He also contends that a lower sentence would
2
suffice to protect the public and that the sentence he received should be reserved
for the most serious conduct.
Section 3583(e)(3) of Title 19 provides that a district court may impose a
sentence of imprisonment for a violation of supervised release after considering the
factors set forth in § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B)-(D), and (a)(4)-(7). 18
U.S.C.§ 3583(e)(3). These factors include:
(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and
characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need for the sentence imposed
. . . to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for
the offense; (B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct; (C)
to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and (D) to
provide the defendant with needed . . . [treatment] . . . ; (4) the kinds
of sentence and the sentencing range . . . ; (5) any pertinent policy
statement . . . (6) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities
among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of
similar conduct; and (7) the need to provide restitution to any victims
of the offense.
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
The district court must impose a sentence that is both procedurally and
substantively reasonable. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 586, 597,
169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). Appellant does not challenge the procedural
reasonableness of his sentence, and his argument that his sentence is not reasonable
is meritless. The district court carefully considered each of the § 3553(a) factors,
and concluded that the need for a sentence to protect the public was paramount. In
3
light of appellant’s inability to obey the law while on supervised release, we cannot
quarrel with the court’s decision regarding that need.
AFFIRMED.
4