United States v. Chandler

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUITU.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JUNE 17, 2011
No. 10-13593 JOHN LEY
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:04-cr-00046-KOB-PWG-2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
PHILLIP EARL CHANDLER,
Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
________________________
(June 17, 2011)
Before WILSON, PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Phillip Chandler appeals his sentence of 36 months of imprisonment
following the revocation of his supervised release. Chandler argues that his
sentence is unreasonable. We affirm.
Chandler’s sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable. In 2005,
Chandler pleaded guilty to conspiring to manufacture more than 100 marijuana
plants, 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(b)(1)(B), and while he was on supervised release,
Chandler and his brother cultivated 58 marijuana plants. The district court
considered Chandler’s guideline range of 12 to 18 months of imprisonment, but
found that “[a] thirty-six month . . . sentence” was necessary to address “the nature
of [Chandler’s] new criminal conduct,” his commission of a “second felony drug
offense,” the “serious[ness] of [his] crime,” his lack of “respect for the law,” and
to “ensure deterrence[,] and . . . protect the public from future criminal conduct”
by Chandler, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3583(e), 3553(a). “[A]t revocation the [district] court
should sanction primarily the defendant’s breach of trust,” U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual, ch. 7, pt. A, introductory cmt. 3(b), and the district court
reasonably determined that Chandler’s decision to return to the drug trade while
under supervised release warranted an upward variance to the maximum statutory
sentence, see United States v. Brown, 224 F.3d 1237, 1242–43 (11th Cir. 2000).
The district court did not abuse its discretion.
Chandler’s sentence is AFFIRMED.
2