United States v. Samuel Cash, Jr. , 455 F. App'x 942 ( 2012 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-13661 FEB 6, 2012
Non-Argument Calendar JOHN LEY
________________________ CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 4:03-cr-00031-CDL-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llPlaintiff-Appellee,
versus
SAMUEL CASH, JR.,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllDefendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
________________________
(February 6, 2012)
Before MARCUS, MARTIN and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Samuel Cash, Jr. appeals his 24-month upward-variance sentence imposed
for violating the conditions of his supervised release. Cash asserts the district
court placed disproportionate emphasis on his criminal history and ignored his
substance-abuse problems in imposing his sentence, and thus his sentence is
substantively unreasonable.
After review, we conclude Cash's sentence was substantively reasonable in
light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007) (reviewing the substantive reasonableness of a sentence under an abuse of
discretion standard, taking into account the totality of the circumstances and the
extent of any variance from the Guidelines range). The record demonstrates that,
in determining Cash's sentence, the district court considered the Chapter 7 policy
statements,1 determined that the 5-to-11-month Guidelines range was not long
enough to serve the purposes of § 3553(a), and found that an upward variance was
warranted. See United States v. Silva, 443 F.3d 795, 799 (11th Cir. 2006) (stating
a district court is required to consider these policy statements, and when exceeding
the recommended range, “must normally indicate that it considered [them]”).
Specifically, the court noted the seriousness of Cash's violations and that he had
absconded for three years, indicating that he had no regard for the conditions of
1
Chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines governs violations of supervised release.
2
his supervised release. Thus, the district court accounted for the need to promote
respect for the law, the nature and circumstances of the offense, and the history
and characteristics of the defendant. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1)-(2). Although Cash
contends the court focused exclusively on his criminal history in imposing his
sentence, the record shows the court accounted for the other § 3553(a) factors, and
this Court will not disturb the district court's weighing of the § 3553(a) factors
absent a clear error of judgment by the district court. See United States v. Pugh,
515 F.3d 1179, 1191 (11th Cir. 2008) (stating this Court will remand for
resentencing only if it is “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”). Further, contrary to Cash’s argument, the court
specifically addressed his substance-abuse problem by recommending his
participation in a substance-abuse program while incarcerated. Thus, we affirm
Cash’s sentence.
AFFIRMED.
3