USA v. Thomas Nervil

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Thomas Nervil. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam.

Case: 10-10188

Date Filed: 06/29/2010

Page: 1 of 4

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-10188
JUNE 29, 2010
Non-Argument Calendar
JOHN LEY
________________________
CLERK

D. C. Docket No. 9:04-cr-80112-DMM-3
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
THOMAS NERVIL,
Defendant-Appellant.

________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(June 29, 2010)
Before PRYOR, MARTIN and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 10-10188

Date Filed: 06/29/2010

Page: 2 of 4

Thomas Nervil appeals his sentence of six months of imprisonment for
violating a term of his supervised release. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). Nervil argues
that his sentence is unreasonable. We affirm.
In 2004, Nervil pleaded guilty to conspiring to commit bank robbery, 18
U.S.C. §§ 371, 2113(a), (d), and bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a), (d), and
received a sentence of 36 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised
release. In March 2009, the district court found that Nervil violated a condition of
his supervised release when he battered his girlfriend by strangling her. The
district court revoked Nervil’s supervised release and sentenced him to time served
and four years of supervised release, with the condition that Nervil complete a
domestic intervention program.
In November 2009, the government petitioned to revoke Nervil’s supervised
release for failing to participate in the intervention program. According to the
petition, Nervil failed to attend five counseling sessions at the Dade Family
Counseling Service. The advisory guideline range provided a sentence of three to
nine months of imprisonment.
At the revocation hearing, the government recounted Nervil’s criminal
history and the lenient sentences he had received previously. The government
requested that the district court sentence Nervil to eight months of imprisonment

2

Case: 10-10188

Date Filed: 06/29/2010

Page: 3 of 4

because Nervil had “resisted treatment” and “denied any wrongdoing,” missed
counseling after he began promoting local recording artists, and failed to submit
documents required to obtain approval for his travel. Nervil admitted violating a
condition of his supervised release, and he requested a sentence “at the low end of
the guideline range.” Nervil argued that he had attended 17 counseling sessions,
had missed one session because of work, and had otherwise complied with the
terms of his release. The district court asked why Nervil had missed his sessions,
and Nervil responded that he could not “afford” the sessions.
Raul Vidal of the Dade County Family Counseling Service testified at the
revocation hearing. Vidal stated that Nervil had incurred about $170 in past due
fees and the Service later reduced Nervil’s counseling fee to $20 per session, after
which “he continued to miss sessions.” Vidal opined that Nervil’s finances were
“not the reason that he stopped going” to counseling.
The district court found that Nervil had “violated the terms and conditions of
supervised release and revoke[d] the period of supervised release.” The district
court sentenced Nervil to six months of imprisonment and four years of supervised
release. The district court ordered that “[a]ll other conditions” imposed at his
previous revocation proceeding were to “remain in effect.”
Nervil argues that the district court failed to consider all factors relevant to

3

Case: 10-10188

Date Filed: 06/29/2010

Page: 4 of 4

his sentence and imposed a greater sentence than necessary, but the district court
was familiar with the circumstances of Nervil’s case and imposed a reasonable
sentence. The district court expressed concern that Nervil had failed to “take [the
condition of his supervised release] as seriously as [he] should have” and found
that Nervil’s “explanations” for failing to attend counseling were “[in]sufficient.”
After it “carefully considered the statements of all parties and the information
contained in the violation report,” the district court concluded that a term of
imprisonment followed by supervised release in which Nervil completed a
domestic counseling program was necessary to impress Nervil about the need to
comply with the law, deter Nervil from similar misconduct, and address Nervil’s
violent tendencies. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(A)–(B), (a)(2)(D). The
district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a sentence in the middle of
the advisory guideline range.
Nervil’s sentence is AFFIRMED.

4