United States v. Quacy Tom Wright

Case: 16-15288 Date Filed: 08/02/2017 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-15288
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:13-cr-00171-WKW-WC-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
QUACY TOM WRIGHT,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Alabama
________________________
(August 2, 2017)
Before TJOFLAT, WILLIAM PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 16-15288 Date Filed: 08/02/2017 Page: 2 of 3
Quacy Tom Wright appeals his 48-month sentence imposed upon revocation
of his supervised release. Wright argues his sentence is substantively
unreasonable. After review, 1 we affirm the district court.
After considering the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C),
(a)(2)(D), and (a)(4)-(7), a district court may revoke a term of supervised release
and impose a sentence of imprisonment if it “finds by a preponderance of the
evidence that the defendant violated a condition of supervised release.” 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(e)(3). The district court must impose a sentence “sufficient, but not greater
than necessary to comply with the purposes” listed in § 3553(a), including the need
to deter criminal conduct and protect the public from the defendant’s future
criminal conduct. Id. § 3553(a)(2)(B)-(C). In imposing a sentence, the court must
also consider the nature and circumstances of the offense, the history and
characteristics of the defendant, the applicable guideline range, the pertinent policy
statements of the Sentencing Commission, the need to avoid unwarranted
sentencing disparities, and the need to provide restitution to victims. Id.
§ 3553(a)(1), (4)-(7).
1
We review a defendant’s sentence for substantive reasonableness under an abuse of
discretion standard. United States v. Velasquez, 524 F.3d 1248, 1252 (11th Cir. 2008) (applying
the same reasonableness standard to a revocation hearing). The party who challenges 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).
2
Case: 16-15288 Date Filed: 08/02/2017 Page: 3 of 3
The concerns articulated by the district court in imposing Wright’s above-
guideline sentence2—i.e., Wright’s criminal history, past supervised release
violation, and drug and firearm violations—show the upward variance was not
unreasonable. In light of Wright’s recidivism and criminal activity−including
possession of marijuana and a firearm−an upward variance was appropriate to
reflect his history and characteristics, to reflect the nature and circumstances of the
offense, and to achieve specific and general deterrence. See id. § 3553(a)(1),
(2)(B). Additionally, Wright’s arguments concerning his supportive family and
mental health are unavailing, as the court specifically addressed the importance of
Wright’s family and noted that Wright was intelligent and functional. Because
Wright’s 48-month sentence was within the “range of reasonable sentences from
which the district court [could] choose,” see United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784,
788 (11th Cir. 2005), the district court did not abuse its discretion, and we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
2
A defendant who, like Wright, has his release revoked for a Grade B violation and was
in criminal history category IV at the time of his original conviction is subject to a guideline
range of 12 to 18 months’ imprisonment for the revocation sentence. U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a). For a
Class B felony, the court cannot impose a sentence of more than five years. 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(b)(1).
3