United States v. Devadney Sanchez Lauderdale ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •         USCA11 Case: 20-13697    Date Filed: 04/23/2021      Page: 1 of 7
    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    ________________________
    No. 20-13697
    Non-Argument Calendar
    ________________________
    D.C. Docket No. 1:15-cr-00101-KOB-GMB-2
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    DEVADNEY SANCHEZ LAUDERDALE,
    a.k.a. Pookie,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Alabama
    ________________________
    (April 23, 2021)
    Before MARTIN, JILL PRYOR, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    USCA11 Case: 20-13697       Date Filed: 04/23/2021   Page: 2 of 7
    Devadney Sanchez Lauderdale appeals his seven-month sentence of
    imprisonment upon revocation of his supervised release. He argues that the district
    court failed to consider the 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a) factors and that his sentence is
    substantively unreasonable. After careful review, we affirm.
    I.
    Lauderdale completed a prison sentence of approximately 50 months for
    possession of a firearm following a felony conviction in August 2019. Upon
    leaving prison, he began a 36-month term of supervised release. The terms of his
    release required him to, among other things, not commit any federal, state, or local
    crimes, obtain permission from the probation office or the court before leaving the
    Northern District of Alabama, and notify his probation officer within 72 hours “of
    being arrested or questioned by a law enforcement officer.”
    Lauderdale completed the first year of supervised release without incident.
    But in August 2020, over the course of a few days, he was arrested for public
    intoxication, third-degree criminal trespass, and disorderly conduct. Lauderdale
    did not inform his probation officer about the arrests. In September 2020,
    Lauderdale also traveled beyond the Northern District of Alabama without the
    permission of his probation officer or the court. During that trip, Lauderdale was
    shot and, although he was not charged for any offense related to that shooting, he
    2
    USCA11 Case: 20-13697           Date Filed: 04/23/2021       Page: 3 of 7
    again failed to inform his probation officer of the resulting contact with law
    enforcement.
    During a supervision revocation hearing before the district court, Lauderdale
    admitted that he failed to inform his probation officer about these incidents and did
    not seek permission to leave the Northern District of Alabama, and the government
    decided to proceed only as to those violations. The statutory maximum for those
    violations is two years’ imprisonment, and the Sentencing Guidelines range is
    seven to thirteen months’ imprisonment, though imprisonment is not required. 1
    Lauderdale argued that, though he “should be given a sanction, possibly,” he
    should not be imprisoned because he had complied with the conditions of
    supervised release for nearly a year without incident and instead asked to be placed
    in a new alcohol abuse treatment facility, after having been dismissed from the first
    one he was placed in. The government argued that Lauderdale’s supervision
    should be revoked because in a period of some forty days “Mr. Lauderdale has had
    three contacts with law enforcement. At no time thereafter did he contact his
    probation officer.” The government recommended a sentence of seven months’
    imprisonment with no supervised release. The court noted that Lauderdale had
    accrued multiple violations in a short period of time, saying that “[s]omething’s
    1
    See 
    18 U.S.C. § 3583
    (g) (setting forth scenarios where revocation of supervised release is
    required).
    3
    USCA11 Case: 20-13697       Date Filed: 04/23/2021    Page: 4 of 7
    going wrong here and it needs to be nipped in the bud.” And the court stated it was
    concerned that Lauderdale was not talking “honestly with [his] probation officer to
    try to get help.” The district court sentenced Lauderdale to seven months’
    imprisonment followed by 29 months of supervised release.
    II.
    Lauderdale first argues that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable
    because the district court failed to consider the 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a) factors. We
    review the procedural reasonableness of a sentence imposed upon revocation of
    supervised release for abuse of discretion. United States v. Trailer, 
    827 F.3d 933
    ,
    935–36 (11th Cir. 2016) (per curiam). The party challenging the sentence bears
    the burden of showing that the sentence is unreasonable. United States v. Pugh,
    
    515 F.3d 1179
    , 1189 (11th Cir. 2008).
    The district court must consider certain § 3553(a) factors when revoking a
    term of supervised release. 
    18 U.S.C. § 3583
    (e)(3). These factors include the
    “nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the
    defendant,” the “kinds of sentence and the sentencing range established” for the
    particular offense. 
    Id.
     § 3553(a)(1), (4).
    But the district court does not have to discuss each factor it is required to
    consider, nor must it explicitly state that it has considered the factors. United
    States v. Kuhlman, 
    711 F.3d 1321
    , 1326 (11th Cir. 2013). The record need only
    4
    USCA11 Case: 20-13697    Date Filed: 04/23/2021    Page: 5 of 7
    indicate that the district court considered some of the factors. See, e.g., United
    States v. Dorman, 
    488 F.3d 936
    , 944 (11th Cir. 2007) (recognizing that record
    indicated the district court “did, in fact, consider a number of the sentencing
    factors”).
    Here, the record makes clear that the district court considered a number of
    the § 3553(a) factors, even if it never explicitly referenced them. The district court
    was clearly concerned about the number of violations and the fact that they
    occurred in a short period of time, which goes to the “nature and circumstances of”
    the violations. 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a)(1). The district court also evinced its
    awareness of the “kinds of sentence” and the “sentencing range established,” as it
    started the hearing by informing Lauderdale of the Guidelines range and statutory
    maximum in his case, and the court considered (although ultimately rejected)
    Lauderdale’s arguments about why he should not be sentenced to a term of
    imprisonment. 
    Id.
     § 3553(a)(4). The district court also considered Lauderdale’s
    “history and characteristics,” including his alcohol abuse problem. Id.
    § 3553(a)(1).
    III.
    Lauderdale also argues that his sentence was substantively unreasonable. He
    argues that a seven-month term of imprisonment is unreasonable for a first
    5
    USCA11 Case: 20-13697       Date Filed: 04/23/2021    Page: 6 of 7
    violation of supervised release, that he had been compliant for nearly a year, and
    that what he really needs is alcohol abuse treatment, not prison.
    We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence imposed upon
    revocation of supervised release for abuse of discretion. Trailer, 827 F.3d at 935–
    36. “A district court abuses its discretion when it (1) fails to afford consideration
    to relevant factors that were due significant weight, (2) gives significant weight to
    an improper or irrelevant factor, or (3) commits a clear error of judgment in
    considering the proper factors.” United States v. Irey, 
    612 F.3d 1160
    , 1189 (11th
    Cir. 2010) (en banc) (quotation marks omitted). We ordinarily expect that a
    sentence within the Guidelines range is reasonable. United States v. Dixon, 
    901 F.3d 1322
    , 1351 (11th Cir. 2018). We reverse a sentence only when we are “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.” Irey,
    
    612 F.3d at 1190
     (quotation marks omitted).
    We are left with no such conviction here. Lauderdale’s sentence was at the
    bottom of the Guidelines range and is well below the statutory maximum of 24
    months. He accrued a number of supervised release violations in quick succession
    which indicated a problem that the district court felt needed “to be nipped in the
    bud.” Lauderdale’s violations also demonstrated that he was not communicating
    6
    USCA11 Case: 20-13697         Date Filed: 04/23/2021   Page: 7 of 7
    completely openly with his probation officer. On this record, we cannot find that
    the district court abused its discretion.
    AFFIRMED.
    7
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20-13697

Filed Date: 4/23/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/23/2021