United States v. Demetrius Revere

Case: 14-10286 Date Filed: 07/09/2014 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-10286
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:03-cr-00155-CAP-ECS-9
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DEMETRIUS REVERE,
a.k.a. Top Cat,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(July 9, 2014)
Before HULL, MARCUS and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 14-10286 Date Filed: 07/09/2014 Page: 2 of 4
Demetrius Revere appeals the revocation of his supervised release and his
sentence of one year and one day in prison, followed by 47 months of supervised
release. Revere argues that the district court violated his right to due process under
the Fifth Amendment when it admitted into evidence a laboratory report recording
the concentration of marijuana in his blood during eight drug tests. Revere
contends, for the first time, that the admission of the report violated his right of
confrontation under the Sixth Amendment and the procedures governing
revocation proceedings in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. Revere also
challenges the reasonableness of his sentence. The government responds that any
error caused by admission of the report was invited and harmless, and Revere’s
sentence is reasonable. We affirm.
We need not decide whether Revere invited the district court to admit the
laboratory report because any error created by its admission was harmless. The
district court was required to revoke Revere’s supervised release and sentence him
to a term of imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g)(3), (g)(4); United States v.
Gari, 572 F.3d 1352, 1362 (11th Cir. 2009); United States v. Sweat, 555 F.3d 1364,
1367 (11th Cir. 2009). Revere admitted that he violated the conditions of his
supervised release by failing to report for drug testing and by testing positive for
marijuana more than three times in one year.
2
Case: 14-10286 Date Filed: 07/09/2014 Page: 3 of 4
The district court did not abuse its discretion by sentencing Revere to a
custodial sentence of one year and one day. The district court twice modified the
conditions of Revere’s supervised release after he failed drug tests, refused to
attend counseling, failed to report for drug testing, and tampered with a urine
sample. After Revere proceeded to take a trip after being denied permission to do
so, tested positive for marijuana 12 times, failed to report for drug tests 8 times,
and tested positive for opiates, the district court was required to revoke his
supervised release and sentence him to a term of imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(g)(3), (g)(4). Revere, who had committed a class A offense by attempting
to commit a murder in furtherance of a conspiracy to engage in a racketeering
activity, faced a maximum sentence of five years of imprisonment following the
revocation of his supervised release. See id. §§ 1963(a), 3559(a)(1), 3583(b)(1).
The district court considered the sentencing factors, see id. § 3553(a), although it
was not required to do so, see id. § 3583(g), and determined that one year of
imprisonment would curtail Revere’s access to marijuana. At Revere’s request, the
district court added one day to the custodial sentence so Revere could be eligible
for good time credit reductions.
Revere argues that the district court exceeded its authority by imposing 47
months of supervised release in addition to the two years he had served, but
“[section] 3583 imposes no ‘statutory maximum’ on the aggregate amount of time
3
Case: 14-10286 Date Filed: 07/09/2014 Page: 4 of 4
a defendant may be required to serve on supervised release for multiple violations
of the conditions of supervised release,” United States v. Gresham, 325 F.3d 1262,
1268 (11th Cir. 2003). “[T]he length of additional supervised release and prison
term upon revocation is . . . [limited only] by the . . . term of supervised release
[that can be imposed for] . . . the class of felony of which the appellant is
convicted,” United States v. Pla, 345 F.3d 1312, 1315 (11th Cir. 2003), and
Revere’s terms of imprisonment and of supervised release were less than his
maximum statutory sentence of 5 years. And the district court was entitled to
divide Revere’s sentence “between [a] prison term and supervised release as [it
saw] fit.” Id. Revere’s sentence is reasonable.
We AFFIRM the revocation of Revere’s supervised release and his
sentence.
4