United States v. Shukree Ameen Simmons , 243 F. App'x 579 ( 2007 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
September 26, 2007
No. 07-10880 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 06-00050-CR-WDO-5
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
SHUKREE AMEEN SIMMONS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
_________________________
(September 26, 2007)
Before BIRCH, BLACK and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Shukree Simmons appeals his sentence imposed after revocation of
supervised release, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). Simmons contends the
district court abused its discretion in imposing a sentence above the Guidelines
range and that his sentence was unreasonable. In particular, Simmons asserts the
district court failed to calculate or consider the Guidelines range, failed to consider
the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors or the policy statements of Chapter 7 of the
Guidelines, and failed to state a reason for the above-Guidelines sentence. We
vacate Simmons’ sentence and remand for resentencing because the district court
failed to adequately state the reasons for the 24-month sentence it imposed as
required by 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c).
When a defendant has violated a condition of supervised release, the district
court may revoke the term of supervision and impose a term of imprisonment after
considering the factors set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). United States v. Campbell,
473 F.3d 1345, 1348 (11th Cir. 2007); 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). According to
§ 3553(c), the sentencing court “shall state in open court the reasons for its
imposition of the particular sentence, and, if the sentence . . . (2) is not of the kind,
or is outside the range, described in [18 U.S.C.] subsection (a)(4), the specific
reason for imposition of a sentence different from that described.” 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(c).
2
We review de novo the question of whether a district court complied with
§ 3553(c), even if the defendant did not object below. United States v. Williams,
438 F.3d 1272, 1274 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 195 (2006). A review of
the revocation hearing transcript reveals that the district court failed to state any
reason for the sentence it imposed other than reciting its finding that Simmons
violated the conditions of supervised release. “When a sentencing court fails to
comply with this requirement, the sentence is imposed in violation of law . . . .”
Williams, 438 F.3d at 1274 (quoting United States v. Veteto, 920 F.2d 823, 826
(11th Cir. 1991)). Accordingly, we vacate and remand for compliance with 18
U.S.C. § 3553(c).
VACATED AND REMANDED.
3