United States v. Wayne Henry Burchfield ( 2016 )

Case: 15-13200 Date Filed: 01/13/2016 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-13200
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cr-00202-WSD-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
WAYNE HENRY BURCHFIELD,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(January 13, 2016)
Before HULL, MARCUS and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 15-13200 Date Filed: 01/13/2016 Page: 2 of 5
Wayne Henry Burchfield appeals his 10-month sentence, imposed by the
district court after his supervised release was revoked. Burchfield contends the
district court abused its discretion in revoking his supervised release because
incarcerating him is not rehabilitative, the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)
militate strongly against revocation, and his infractions do not warrant
incarceration in light of his history and mitigating circumstances. Burchfield also
asserts the sentence imposed by the district court was excessive in light of the 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors applicable upon revocation of supervised release. After
review, 1 we affirm.
I. DISCUSSION
A. Revocation
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3), a district court may revoke a term of
supervised release based upon a preponderance of the evidence showing that a
defendant has violated a condition of supervised release, and impose a term of
imprisonment after considering certain factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
United States v. Sweeting, 437 F.3d 1105, 1107 (11th Cir. 2006). Revocation of
supervised release is mandatory, however, if the district court finds that the
1
We review a district court’s revocation of supervised release for an abuse of discretion.
United States v. Mitsven, 452 F.3d 1264, 1266 (11th Cir. 2006). We review a sentence imposed
upon the revocation of supervised release for reasonableness. United States v. Sweeting, 437
F.3d 1105, 1106-07 (11th Cir. 2006).
2
Case: 15-13200 Date Filed: 01/13/2016 Page: 3 of 5
defendant violated a condition of his supervised release by testing positive for
drugs more than three times over the course of one year. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g)(4).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Burchfield’s
supervised release because revocation was mandatory under § 3583(g)(4).
Burchfield admitted, and the district court found, that he violated his supervised
release by testing positive for drugs four times in less than one year. Although the
district court concluded that revocation was discretionary, we may affirm on any
ground supported by the record. See Big Top Koolers, Inc. v. Circus-Man Snacks,
Inc., 528 F.3d 839, 844 (11th Cir. 2008).
B. Sentence
The party challenging the sentence bears the burden to show the sentence is
unreasonable in light of the record and the § 3553(a) factors. United States v.
Tome, 611 F.3d 1371, 1378 (11th Cir. 2010). The weight to be given any
particular factor under § 3553(a) is left to the sound discretion of the district court,
absent a clear error of judgment. United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1189 (11th
Cir. 2010) (en banc). We reverse only if “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.” Id. (quotations omitted). Although we
do not automatically presume a sentence falling within the guideline range to be
3
Case: 15-13200 Date Filed: 01/13/2016 Page: 4 of 5
reasonable, we ordinarily expect such a sentence to be reasonable. United States v.
Hunt, 526 F.3d 739, 746 (11th Cir. 2008).
Burchfield’s within-guidelines, 10-month sentence does not represent an
abuse of discretion in light of the facts and the applicable § 3553(a) factors. The
record shows a history of second chances since Burchfield’s initial release from his
long incarceration, and a parallel history of violations, some of which are criminal
in nature. Burchfield has left town at least twice against the terms of his release;
has used drugs on numerous occasions, failed drug tests or failed to submit to
them; has violated the policies of the drug treatment facilities in which he was
placed; has threatened to force police to kill him; has failed to notify his probation
officer of a speeding ticket; and has failed to make required payments toward his
attorney fees. He has been placed in at least two treatment programs by the courts,
and his supervised release already was revoked once before. The nature and
circumstances of the instant violations—drug use, leaving town without
permission, violating treatment program policy—and the breach of trust implicit in
them; Burchfield’s own history and characteristics; the need for deterrence; the
need to protect the public; and the Guidelines all support the reasonableness of the
district court’s sentence despite the mitigating factors Burchfield introduced of his
mental issues, his need for medication and stability, and the problems he has faced
with his family.
4
Case: 15-13200 Date Filed: 01/13/2016 Page: 5 of 5
II. CONCLUSION
The district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Burchfield’s
supervised release. Additionally, Burchfield’s 10-month sentence is not
unreasonable.
AFFIRMED.
5