USA v. Ivory Brinson

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Ivory Charles Brinson. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 16-17270

Date Filed: 07/14/2017

Page: 1 of 4

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-17270
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:04-cr-14027-KAM-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
IVORY CHARLES BRINSON,
Defendant-Appellant.

________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(July 14, 2017)

Case: 16-17270

Date Filed: 07/14/2017

Page: 2 of 4

Before HULL, WILSON and WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Ivory Charles Brinson appeals his life term of supervised release, less 14
months, imposed after the revocation of his original supervised release, 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(e)(3), (h), because he tested positive for marijuana use. Brinson argues that
his life term of supervised release is procedurally unreasonable because the district
court impermissibly relied on the commutation of his original sentence to the
exclusion of the statutory sentencing factors, id. § 3553(a). Brinson also argues that
his new term of supervised release is substantively unreasonable. We affirm.
We review the reasonableness of a sentence imposed after the revocation of
supervised release for abuse of discretion. United States v. Trailer, 827 F.3d 933,
935 (11th Cir. 2016). If a defendant violates a condition of his supervised release,
the district court may revoke his supervised release, impose a prison term, and
impose a new term of supervised release. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3), (h).
In reviewing the reasonableness of a sentence, we follow a two-step process.
Trailer, 827 F.3d at 935. First, we ensure that the sentence was procedurally
reasonable by reviewing whether the district court miscalculated the guideline
range, treated the Sentencing Guidelines as mandatory, failed to consider the
statutory sentencing factors, based the sentence on clearly erroneous facts, or failed
to adequately explain the sentence. Id. at 936; see also 18 U.S.C. § 3583(c). The
2

Case: 16-17270

Date Filed: 07/14/2017

Page: 3 of 4

district court is not required to give a lengthy explanation of its reasons for
rejecting a defendant’s arguments, but must set forth enough explanation to show
that the court considered the parties’ arguments and had a reasoned basis for its
decision. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356–57 (2007). And a failure to state
that the court considered the statutory sentencing factors does not render a sentence
procedurally unreasonable, if the record otherwise reflects that the court considered
the factors. United States v. Dorman, 488 F.3d 936, 944 (11th Cir. 2007). Second,
we examine whether the sentence was substantively reasonable in the light of the
statutory sentencing factors. Trailer, 827 F.3d at 936. Although we will not
substitute our judgment in weighing the relevant factors, a court can abuse its
discretion when it fails to consider relevant factors that were due significant
weight, gives an improper or irrelevant factor significant weight, or commits a
clear error of judgment by balancing the factors unreasonably. United States v.
Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1189 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a life term, less 14
months, of supervised release. Trailer, 827 F.3d at 936. The sentence is
procedurally reasonable because the district court considered the statutory
sentencing factors and the parties’ arguments and did not impermissibly consider
Brinson’s commutation to the exclusion of other relevant aspects of his
background and history. The sentence is substantively reasonable because the
3

Case: 16-17270

Date Filed: 07/14/2017

Page: 4 of 4

district court did not fail to consider any factor due significant weight, give an
improper factor significant weight, or unjustifiably rely on one of the factors to the
exclusion of the others. The district court committed no clear error in judgment
when it gave significant weight to Brinson’s extensive criminal history and
likelihood of recidivism. We affirm.
AFFIRMED.

4