Case: 17-15709 Date Filed: 07/13/2018 Page: 1 of 8
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-15709
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cr-20057-MGC-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JAHED MOVLAYAZDANPAHI,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(July 13, 2018)
Before TJOFLAT, NEWSOM and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Jahed Movlayazdanpahi appeals his 18-month above-guidelines sentence
imposed following the second revocation of his supervised release. On appeal,
Case: 17-15709 Date Filed: 07/13/2018 Page: 2 of 8
Movlayazdanpahi argues that the district court failed to adequately consider his
mitigating circumstances and imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence.
After review of the record and consideration of the parties’ briefs, we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
In June 2013, Movlayazdanpahi pled guilty to one count of receiving,
concealing, and retaining a stolen tax refund check, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 641 and 2. At sentencing, Movlayazdanpahi had a guidelines range of 33 to 41
months’ imprisonment, driven largely by his criminal history category of VI.
Movlayazdanpahi had a total of 14 criminal history points based on his prior
criminal convictions, several of which involved driving without a valid license.
The district court sentenced Movlayazdanpahi to 33 months’ imprisonment
followed by 3 years of supervised release and ordered him to pay $30,577.55 in
restitution. Among other things, the conditions of Movlayazdanpahi’s supervised
release required him: (1) not to leave the judicial district without permission of the
court or a probation officer; (2) to notify the probation officer at least 10 days in
advance of any change in residence or employment; and (3) not to commit another
federal, state, or local crime. Movlayazdanpahi completed his 33-month sentence
in August 2015 and began serving his 3-year term of supervised release.
In September 2016, Movlayazdanpahi was arrested for violating the
conditions of his supervised release. At his revocation hearing for this first
2
Case: 17-15709 Date Filed: 07/13/2018 Page: 3 of 8
violation, Movlayazdanpahi admitted to three of the alleged violations: (1) failure
to pay restitution; (2) failure to notify the probation officer after being questioned
by law enforcement; and (3) failing to participate in his outpatient treatment
program. The government agreed to dismiss the remaining three violations, two of
which had to do with Movlayazdanpahi driving with a suspended license.
Movlayazdanpahi’s revocation guidelines range was 8 to 14 months, but he
requested a downward variance to a sentence of home confinement, arguing that
his criminal history category of VI overrepresented the seriousness of his criminal
history, which largely involved traffic offenses. Movlayazdanpahi further asserted
that home confinement would allow him to continue working, paying his
restitution, and caring for his six-year-old son. The district court expressed
concern about Movlayazdanpahi’s ability to continue doing these activities when
he was not supposed to be driving with his license suspended. Movlayazdanpahi
represented that he was working with a lawyer in state court to get his license
issues resolved and that his girlfriend would be able assist him with transportation
in the meantime.
Though the district court expressed some additional reservations about
Movlayazdanpahi’s ability to comply with the conditions of home confinement, the
district court ultimately decided to “give [Movlayazdanpahi] a chance,” sentenced
him to 6 months of home confinement, and reinstated his supervised release. The
3
Case: 17-15709 Date Filed: 07/13/2018 Page: 4 of 8
district court further instructed that Movlayazdanpahi was to remain employed,
work on clearing up his driving record, and begin to pay his restitution.
In September 2017, approximately a year after his first violation, a second
warrant was issued for Movlayazdanpahi’s arrest based on additional violations of
his supervised release. Specifically, Movlayazdanpahi: (1) failed to refrain from
violating the law when, in August 2017, he was arrested in Georgia for giving a
false name, address, and birth date to a law enforcement officer and driving with a
suspended license; (2) left the judicial district without permission; (3) failed to
satisfy his restitution obligation as ordered; (4) failed to notify the probation office
of a change in residence; and (5) failed to notify the probation office of a change in
employment. Because his underlying offense was a Class C felony,
Movlayazdanpahi faced a statutory maximum revocation term of two years (24
months). 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). Based on Movlayazdanpahi’s criminal history
category of VI, his revocation guidelines range was 8 to 14 months’ imprisonment.
At his second revocation hearing in January 2018, Movlayazdanpahi
admitted all five violations. The government and the probation office
recommended a 24-month revocation sentence. Movlayazdanpahi requested a
more lenient revocation sentence, noting that he had been incarcerated since his
August 2017 arrest in Georgia. Movlayazdanpahi further stated that, prior to his
4
Case: 17-15709 Date Filed: 07/13/2018 Page: 5 of 8
arrest, he had been doing very well at his new job and his employer was willing to
rehire him upon his release.
The district court remarked that Movlayazdanpahi nevertheless had been
“doing things he knows he shouldn’t be doing,” including being outside the district
and “driving when he knows he doesn’t have a valid license.” The district court
further noted that Movlayazdanpahi had “been chastised . . . for that in the past,”
and that this was not his first supervised release violation. Movlayazdanpahi
explained that his suspended driver’s license was the root of his problems and that
the issue remained unresolved because he had trouble paying the fines he owed.
Movlayazdanpahi asserted that he had been fighting to maintain a job so he could
pay those fines and get his license back. Additionally, Movlayazdanpahi stated
that he was now in a more stable living situation and that his girlfriend had
volunteered to drive him to and from work until he resolved his license issues.
Movlayazdanpahi personally addressed the district court, reiterating that his
issues with his license were “more monetary than anything else,” and stating that
he had had trouble paying the fines because his previous employer refused to
compensate him for all of the hours he worked. Movlayazdanpahi further asserted
that he was hardworking, wanted to be a positive influence on his children, and
wanted “to go back to work and just move forward with [his] life.”
5
Case: 17-15709 Date Filed: 07/13/2018 Page: 6 of 8
The district court sentenced Movlayazdanpahi to 18 months’ imprisonment,
stating that it had reviewed “the argument of counsel as well as the materials
provided for me in the petition” for Movlayazdanpahi’s arrest.1 Movlayazdanpahi
objected to the above-guidelines sentence. He now appeals.
II. DISCUSSION
If a defendant violates the conditions of his supervised release, the district
court may, after considering certain 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, revoke the
defendant’s supervised release. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). In imposing a revocation
sentence, the district court must consider, among other things, the nature and
circumstances of the offense, the defendant’s history and characteristics, the need
for deterrence, and the applicable guidelines range.
Id. §§ 3583(e), 3553(a)(1),
(2)(B)-(C), (4).
We review a district court’s revocation of supervised release for an abuse of
discretion, and review the revocation sentence imposed for reasonableness. United
States v. Vandergrift,
754 F.3d 1303, 1307 (11th Cir. 2014). The party challenging
the sentence bears the burden of showing its unreasonableness, and we will not
vacate a defendant’s sentence unless we are “left with the definite and firm
conviction that the district court committed a clear error of judgment in weighing
1
Notably, the district court did not impose any additional supervised release term
following this 18-month incarceration sentence. Thus, following his release from custody on his
revocation sentence, Movlayazdanpahi will not be subject to any further supervision in
connection with this conviction.
6
Case: 17-15709 Date Filed: 07/13/2018 Page: 7 of 8
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. Trailer,
827 F.3d 933, 936 (11th Cir. 2016) (quotation omitted). That a sentence is outside
the guidelines range does not render it presumptively unreasonable, and when the
district court varies from the guidelines range, we must “give due deference to the
district court’s decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify the extent of
the variance.” Gall v. United States,
552 U.S. 38, 51,
128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007).
Furthermore, “[t]he fact that [we] might reasonably have concluded that a different
sentence was appropriate is insufficient to justify reversal.”
Id.
Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking
Movlayazdanpahi’s supervised release and imposing an 18-month revocation
sentence. As outlined above, the district court granted Movlayazdanpahi leniency
in his first revocation proceeding and varied below the guidelines range to impose
a sentence of home confinement, intended to allow Movlayazdanpahi to continue
working, pay his restitution, and get his life back on track. In his first revocation
proceeding, Movlayazdanpahi represented that he was working earnestly to resolve
his license issues and would find alternative solutions for his transportation needs
in the meantime. Nevertheless, despite these representations and despite being
given a second chance by the district court, Movlayazdanpahi violated his
supervised release again just one year later.
7
Case: 17-15709 Date Filed: 07/13/2018 Page: 8 of 8
Under these particular circumstances, it was not unreasonable for the district
court, in Movlayazdanpahi’s second revocation proceeding, to reject his renewed
representations that he would seek alternative transportation and resolve his license
issues. Nor was it unreasonable for the district court to conclude that an above-
guidelines revocation sentence was necessary to deter Movlayazdanpahi from
further violations, in light of his demonstrated inability to comply with the
conditions of his supervised release and repeated history of driving with a
suspended license. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (2)(B). Movlayazdanpahi
complains that the district court failed to give sufficient weight to his mitigating
circumstances, such as his stable job and home life, but the weight given to any
particular § 3553(a) factor is committed to the district court’s sound discretion, and
we see no clear error in the district court’s weighing of those factors here. See
United States v. Clay,
483 F.3d 739, 743 (11th Cir. 2007).
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the district court did not err in
imposing an 18-month sentence on the second revocation of Movlayazdanpahi’s
supervised release. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
8
