[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 11-16113
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:00-cr-00073-MEF-WC-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
REGINALD LENARD BLUE,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Alabama
________________________
(October 4, 2012)
Before MARCUS, JORDAN and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
After finding that Reginald Blue had violated the terms of his supervised
release, the district court sentenced him to 36 months of imprisonment, followed by
24 months of supervised release. On appeal, Mr. Blue challenges his sentence,
arguing that the district court incorrectly characterized his violations as Grade B
violations under the Sentencing Guidelines, and that the sentence was substantively
unreasonable. After review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm.
First, the district court correctly concluded that one of the violations was a
Grade B violation and that Mr. Blue had an advisory range of 21-27 months’
imprisonment under Chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines. See D.E. 210 at 115.
One of Mr. Blue’s violations was the filing of a false monthly report with the
probation office, and because such a violation “fit[s] within the conduct covered by
[18 U.S.C.] § 1001, and that statute provides a term of imprisonment of up to five
years, the district court did not err in concluding that the false statements [in the
monthly report] constituted [a] Grade B violation under the Guidelines.” United
States v. Grimes, 54 F.3d 489, 492 (8th Cir. 1995). See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1(a)(2)
(“conduct constituting any other federal, state, or local offense punishable by a term
of imprisonment exceeding one year” is a Grade B violation).
Second, reviewing under the deferential abuse of discretion standard, see Gall
v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007), we cannot say that the 36-month sentence
was substantively unreasonable. The Sentencing guidelines provide that an upward
2
departure from the Chapter 7 advisory range may be appropriate where “the original
sentence was the result of a downward departure (e.g., as a reward for substantial
assistance) . . . that resulted in a sentence below the guideline range applicable to the
defendant’s conduct [.].” U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4, comment. n.4. The district court, while
discussing the relevant sentencing factors, specifically relied on this rationale, noting
that Mr. Blue had received a downward departure from 360 months to 120 months at
his original sentencing due to his cooperation. See D.E. 210 at 123 (“I find that this
variance upward is warranted because of the substantial departure that you received
for your original sentence. I also find that the sentence is a reasonable one based
upon the seriousness of the offense, the need to promote respect for the law and
provide just punishment for the offense, to afford adequate deterrence to criminal
conduct; to protect from any further crimes of you, Mr. Blue, and to provide you with
the need[ed] . . . care or . . . treatment [.].”) (emphasis added).
Mr. Blue’s 36-month sentence is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
3