United States v. Cedric Eugene Corl

Case: 12-15496 Date Filed: 05/02/2013 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
______________________
No. 12-15496
Non-Argument Calendar
______________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cr-00011-SPM-GRJ-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
CEDRIC EUGENE CORL,
Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
_______________________
(May 2, 2013)
Before TJOFLAT, PRYOR, and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Cedric Corl pled guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. § 2259(a) by failing to register
as required by the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, 42 U.S.C. §
16901 et seq. The district court sentenced him to 18 months’ imprisonment, to be
Case: 12-15496 Date Filed: 05/02/2013 Page: 2 of 3
followed by a 10-year term of supervised release. On appeal, Mr. Corl challenges
the supervised release term as substantively unreasonable, arguing that the district
did not adequately justify such a lengthy period of supervised release.
Insofar as procedural and substantive reasonableness concerned, our review
is for abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). For
the reasons which follow, we affirm.
We find no abuse of discretion with respect to the 10-year term of
supervised release. First, we note that the district court had to impose a minimum
5-year term of supervised release, and could have placed Mr. Corl on supervised
release for life. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k). Second, Mr. Corl had two prior
convictions for sex-related misconduct (a battery in 1999 for improperly touching
an 8-year old girl and an attempted second-degree rape in 2005 involving his
nephew’s girlfriend). See Presentence Investigation Report at ¶¶ 31-32. Third,
Mr. Corl had failed to register as a sex offender for several years following his
release from prison in 2008. See Change of Plea Hearing Transcript [D.E. 49] at
17-18. On this record, the district court had sufficient reason to conclude that “a
lengthy term of supervision [was] warranted.” See Order on Defendant’s
Objection to Sentence [D.E. 39] at 1. See also United States v. Brewer, 628 F.3d
975, 978 (8th Cir. 2010) (upholding 15-year term of supervised release for
defendant who failed to register as a sex offender).
2
Case: 12-15496 Date Filed: 05/02/2013 Page: 3 of 3
We also find no procedural error. Not only did the district court expressly
say that a lengthy term of supervised release was necessary, the record showed that
Mr. Corl traveled to other states to work as a welder, and the district court
explained that during “the term of supervised release the probation officer can help
[Mr. Corl] comply with the registration requirements and allow him to engage in
work opportunities.” See Order on Defendant’s Objection to Sentence at 1. This is
not a case like United States v. Fraga, 704 F.3d 432, 441-42 (5th Cir. 2013), where
the district court erred by suggesting that it “automatically defaulted to the
imposition of a lifetime term” of supervised release.
AFFIRMED.
3