No. 16-17270, Non-Argument Calendar.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. IVORY CHARLES BRINSON, Defendant-Appellant.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Michael Caruso , for Defendant-Appellant.

Sivashree Sundaram , for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Wifredo A. Ferrer , for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Panayotta Augustin-Birch , for Defendant-Appellant.

Theodore Cooperstein , for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Emily M. Smachetti , for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Rinku Talwar Tribuiani , for Plaintiff-Appellee.

James Glen McAdams, III , for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jason Wu , for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Before HULL, WILSON and WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit Judges.



Ivory Charles Brinson appeals his life term of supervised release, less 14 months, imposed after the revocation of his original supervised release, 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3), (h), because he tested positive for marijuana use. Brinson argues that his life term of supervised release is procedurally unreasonable because the district court impermissibly relied on the commutation of his original sentence to the exclusion of the statutory sentencing factors, id. § 3553(a). Brinson also argues that his new term of supervised release is substantively unreasonable. We affirm.

We review the reasonableness of a sentence imposed after the revocation of supervised release for abuse of discretion. United States v. Trailer, 827 F.3d 933, 935 (11th Cir. 2016). If a defendant violates a condition of his supervised release, the district court may revoke his supervised release, impose a prison term, and impose a new term of supervised release. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3), (h).

In reviewing the reasonableness of a sentence, we follow a two-step process. Trailer, 827 F.3d at 935. First, we ensure that the sentence was procedurally reasonable by reviewing whether the district court miscalculated the guideline range, treated the Sentencing Guidelines as mandatory, failed to consider the statutory sentencing factors, based the sentence on clearly erroneous facts, or failed to adequately explain the sentence. Id. at 936; see also 18 U.S.C. § 3583(c). The district court is not required to give a lengthy explanation of its reasons for rejecting a defendant's arguments, but must set forth enough explanation to show that the court considered the parties' arguments and had a reasoned basis for its decision. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356-57 (2007). And a failure to state that the court considered the statutory sentencing factors does not render a sentence procedurally unreasonable, if the record otherwise reflects that the court considered the factors. United States v. Dorman, 488 F.3d 936, 944 (11th Cir. 2007). Second, we examine whether the sentence was substantively reasonable in the light of the statutory sentencing factors. Trailer, 827 F.3d at 936. Although we will not substitute our judgment in weighing the relevant factors, a court can abuse its discretion when it fails to consider relevant factors that were due significant weight, gives an improper or irrelevant factor significant weight, or commits a clear error of judgment by balancing the factors unreasonably. United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1189 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a life term, less 14 months, of supervised release. Trailer, 827 F.3d at 936. The sentence is procedurally reasonable because the district court considered the statutory sentencing factors and the parties' arguments and did not impermissibly consider Brinson's commutation to the exclusion of other relevant aspects of his background and history. The sentence is substantively reasonable because the district court did not fail to consider any factor due significant weight, give an improper factor significant weight, or unjustifiably rely on one of the factors to the exclusion of the others. The district court committed no clear error in judgment when it gave significant weight to Brinson's extensive criminal history and likelihood of recidivism. We affirm.



1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases