Case: 12-14395 Date Filed: 03/06/2013 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-14395
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:07-cr-00073-MEF-WC-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
WILLIE K. WARREN,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Alabama
________________________
(March 6, 2013)
Before CARNES, BARKETT and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 12-14395 Date Filed: 03/06/2013 Page: 2 of 5
Willie K. Warren appeals his 24-month sentence, imposed upon revocation
of his term of supervised release due to unlawful use of a controlled substance. On
appeal, Warren argues that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because his
sentence was predetermined at a prior revocation hearing. In addition, Warren
argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court
failed to attach significant weight to his deteriorating health and instead focused on
the prior promise of punishment. After thorough review, we affirm.
We review a sentence imposed by the district court upon revocation of
supervised release for reasonableness. United States v. Velasquez Velasquez, 524
F.3d 1248, 1252 (11th Cir. 2008). In reviewing the reasonableness of a sentence,
we must first ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural
error. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597, 169 L. Ed. 2d
445 (2007). Upon finding that a defendant has violated a condition of supervised
release, a district court may revoke the term of supervised release and impose a
term of imprisonment after considering the specific factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. §
3553(a). Velasquez Velasquez, 524 F.3d at 1252; 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). In
imposing a sentence upon revocation of supervised release, the district court must
consider the advisory ranges of imprisonment set forth in Chapter 7 of the
Sentencing Guidelines. United States v. Brown, 224 F.3d 1237, 1242 (11th Cir.
2000).
2
Case: 12-14395 Date Filed: 03/06/2013 Page: 3 of 5
Once we determine that a sentence is procedurally sound, we examine
whether the sentence was substantively reasonable in light of the record and the
§ 3553(a) factors. United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir. 2005). We
consider the history and characteristics of the defendant, the seriousness of the
offense, the need to promote respect for the law, the need to provide just
punishment, the need to afford adequate deterrence, the need to protect the public,
and the need to provide the defendant with medical care or treatment in the most
effective manner. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The weight given to a particular factor
under § 3553(a) is left to the sound discretion of the district court. United States v.
Williams, 526 F.3d 1312, 1322 (11th Cir. 2008); see also Gall, 552 U.S. at 57, 128
S. Ct. at 600 (holding that the district court may give “great weight” to a particular
§ 3553(a) factor). We will remand for resentencing only if left with the 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. United States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179, 1191 (11th Cir.
2008).
The district court’s decision to impose a 24-month sentence was both
procedurally and substantively reasonable. The district court expressly stated that
it considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), as well as the advisory
range set forth in Chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines, and it explained its
3
Case: 12-14395 Date Filed: 03/06/2013 Page: 4 of 5
reasons for imposing the sentence that it did. See Velasquez Velasquez, 524 F.3d at
125; Brown, 224 F.3d at 1242. Warren argues that he did not have a fair hearing
because the district court considered itself bound to its promise at a prior
revocation hearing that it would impose the statutory maximum sentence if Warren
ended up in court again. Despite the fact that Warren was ultimately sentenced to
the statutory maximum sentence of 24 months’ imprisonment, the district court
expressly stated on at least two occasions that it did not consider itself bound by
this statement and further explained that this prior statement was not the reason it
imposed this particular sentence.
The record also supports the district court’s conclusion that a lesser sentence
would not be sufficient to accomplish the purposes of § 3553(a)(2), including the
need to promote respect for the law, afford adequate deterrence, and provide just
punishment. Even though Warren had already had his term of supervised release
revoked twice and served a term of imprisonment upon each revocation, he
continued to disregard conditions imposed upon him by the court and continued his
unlawful use of controlled substances. Both prior revocations were for, inter alia,
his unlawful use of controlled substances. The current revocation was also for his
unlawful use of controlled substances. Although Warren argues that his medical
condition justifies a lower sentence,1 the record reveals that the district court did
1
Warren has cystic fibrosis and other medical conditions derived from cystic fibrosis.
4
Case: 12-14395 Date Filed: 03/06/2013 Page: 5 of 5
consider Warren’s health situation. Moreover, the district court has considerable
discretion to give great weight to Warren’s continued disregard for the conditions
imposed on him, the failure of prior revocations of his supervised release to deter
his criminal conduct, and his continued unlawful use of controlled substances.
Based on these considerations, the district court’s decision to impose a 24-month
sentence was reasonable. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
5