[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-14403 APRIL 17, 2009
Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 99-00031-CR-CDL-4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff–Appellee,
versus
RICKEY LADON PERSON,
Defendant–Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
_________________________
(April 17, 2009)
Before BIRCH, HULL and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Rickey Ladon Person appeals his 60-month statutory maximum sentence for
violating a condition of supervised release. In 2000, Person was convicted on a
charge of possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine, and after receiving a
downward departure for providing substantial assistance, under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1,
he was sentenced to a below-guidelines range term of 78 months’ imprisonment.
The district court also imposed on him a 5-year term of supervised release, which
included the requirement that he not commit another federal, state, or local crime.
When Person was on supervised release, he was charged with violating a condition
of supervised release by committing a drug offense in Alabama. He admitted the
violation and the district court imposed the instant 60-month sentence. On appeal,
Person argues that his 60-month above-guidelines range sentence was procedurally
and substantively unreasonable.
“Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), upon finding that the defendant violated a
condition of supervised release, a district court may revoke the term of supervised
release and impose a term of imprisonment after considering the specific factors set
forth in
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).” United States v. Velasquez Velasquez,
524 F.3d
1248, 1252 (11th Cir. 2008). “We review the sentence imposed upon the
revocation of supervised release for reasonableness.”
Id. Reasonableness review
includes both procedural and substantive components. Gall v. United States, 552
U.S. ___, ___,
128 S.Ct. 586, 597,
169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). In considering the
2
reasonableness of a sentence, we employ an abuse-of-discretion standard
“[r]egardless of whether the sentence imposed is inside or outside the Guidelines
range.”
Id. at __,
128 S.Ct. at 597.
Person’s 60-month statutory maximum sentence was procedurally and
substantively reasonable because the district court adequately considered the
§ 3553(a) factors and did not abuse its discretion in weighing those factors and
arriving at the sentence. Therefore, we affirm Person’s sentence.
AFFIRMED.
3
