Case: 11-14065 Date Filed: 08/28/2012 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 11-14065
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:97-cr-00319-LSC-TMP-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MORRIS MITCHELL PARHAM,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
________________________
(August 28, 2012)
Before HULL, MARCUS and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 11-14065 Date Filed: 08/28/2012 Page: 2 of 5
Morris Mitchell Parham appeals his 40-month sentence imposed upon
revocation of his supervised release, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). On
appeal, Parham argues that his 40-month sentence, which is above the advisory
guidelines range, is substantively unreasonable. After review, we affirm.
“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).1 The district
court must consider the policy statements in Chapter 7 of the Sentencing
Guidelines, one of which provides recommended, non-binding ranges of
imprisonment. United States v. Silva, 443 F.3d 795, 799 (11th Cir. 2006).
Here, the parties do not dispute that, with a Grade B violation and a criminal
history category of VI, Parham’s recommended guidelines range under advisory
Chapter 7 was 21 to 27 months’ imprisonment. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a). Because
1
The relevant § 3553(a) factors the court must consider are: (1) the nature and
circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need to
afford adequate deterrence; (3) the need to protect the public; (4) the need to provide the
defendant with educational or vocational training or medical care; (5) the guidelines range and
pertinent policy statements of the Sentencing Commission; (6) the need to avoid unwanted
sentencing disparities; and (7) the need to provide restitution to victims. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)
(cross referencing 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B)-(D), (a)(4)-(7)).
2
Case: 11-14065 Date Filed: 08/28/2012 Page: 3 of 5
Parham was on supervised release for a Class A felony, the statutory maximum
sentence upon revocation was five years’ imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(e)(3).
We review a sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release for
reasonableness, using the deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. United States
v. Velasquez Velasquez, 524 F.3d 1248, 1252 (11th Cir. 2008). The party
challenging the sentence has the burden to show it is unreasonable. United States
v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir. 2005). We will vacate a sentence only if
“we are left with the definite and firm conviction that the district court committed
a clear error of judgment in weighing the § 3553(a) factors by arriving at a
sentence that lies outside the range of reasonable sentences dictated by the facts of
the case.” United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1190 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc)
(quotation marks omitted).2
Here, Parham has not shown that his 40-month sentence was substantively
unreasonable. Parham has a long history of criminal activity, including numerous
convictions for possession of marijuana. Parham’s underlying conviction was for
possession with intent to distribute 106.8 grams of cocaine base. Specifically, in
2
Parham does not challenge the district court’s finding that he violated the terms of his
supervised release or argue that the district court committed any procedural error.
3
Case: 11-14065 Date Filed: 08/28/2012 Page: 4 of 5
1996, police officers in Bessemer, Alabama stopped Parham’s car to arrest him for
a felony probation violation and found three bags of crack cocaine on his person.
After pleading guilty, Parham was sentenced to 151 months’ imprisonment,
followed by five years’ supervised release.3
In May 2008, Parham began his period of supervised release, one condition
of which was to refrain from illegally possessing a controlled substance. Just over
three years later, on July 27, 2011, Parham was arrested for possession of
marijuana and cocaine. The drugs, which a Bessemer, Alabama police officer
found in Parham’s car, were packaged into seven bags of marijuana and four bags
of cocaine, i.e, packaged individually for sale. Although Parham testified at the
revocation hearing that he did not own the drugs or know they were in the car and
denied he was a drug dealer, the district court discredited his testimony, finding
that Parham had “obviously gone back to dealing drugs.” Parham does not
challenge this finding on appeal.
In imposing a 40-month sentence, the district court noted Parham’s criminal
history as a drug dealer who “had a hundred something grams of crack cocaine
with [him] the last time” the police stopped him in Bessemer. In light of Parham’s
3
In April 2008, the district court granted Parham’s 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a
sentence reduction and reduced his sentence to “time-served.”
4
Case: 11-14065 Date Filed: 08/28/2012 Page: 5 of 5
“past history of dealing in drugs before” and his “having drugs that obviously
were packaged for sale,” the district court concluded that a sentence within the
advisory guidelines range was not sufficient.
Although Parham’s 40-month sentence is thirteen months above the
advisory guidelines range, it is below the five-year statutory maximum. Given
Parham’s long history of drug offenses and his return to drug dealing only three
years after his release from prison, we cannot say the district court’s decision to
vary upward was unreasonable.
AFFIRMED.
5