United States v. Azell Tywon Canty
711 F. App'x 542
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Canty pleaded guilty in 2013 to bank fraud conspiracy, access device fraud, and aggravated identity theft; received 61 months custody and 60 months supervised release.
- Within a year of release he traveled to Georgia without permission, was arrested on identity-fraud charges, and his probation officer sought revocation of supervised release.
- At the revocation hearing the district court found two violations and noted Canty had resumed the same criminal conduct as before.
- The advisory revocation range was 21–27 months; the statutory maximum was 36 months; the court sentenced Canty to the 36‑month maximum.
- The district court explained the upward sentence by citing Canty’s "absolute disregard for the law" and concern that he would return to criminal activity; Canty’s counsel raised no objection at the hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court considered § 3553(a) factors | Canty: court failed to consider all § 3553(a) factors and relied only on deterrence | Govt: record shows court considered nature of offense, defendant history, deterrence, statutory max and advisory range | No plain error; court sufficiently considered § 3553(a) factors |
| Whether court stated a rationale as required by § 3553(c)(2) | Canty: court gave no reasoning for imposing 36 months over Chapter 7 range | Govt: court stated reasons in open court (disregard for law, resumed criminality) | De novo review: requirement satisfied; explanation adequate |
| Whether upward variance from Chapter 7 guidelines was unreasonable | Canty: sentence outside advisory Chapter 7 range was unreasonable | Govt: Chapter 7 policy statements are advisory; court referenced range and explained basis for exceeding it | No plain error; record shows court was aware of and considered Chapter 7; sentence upheld |
| Whether state charges mitigate federal revocation sentence | Canty: state charges are relatively minor and make 36 months unreasonable | Govt: defendant did not develop argument or cite authority | Argument abandoned for inadequate briefing; court declines to consider |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Vandergrift, 754 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir. 2014) (standard of review for supervised-release revocation and sentencing)
- United States v. Dorman, 488 F.3d 936 (11th Cir. 2007) (district court need not state on record explicit consideration of each § 3553(a) factor, but record must indicate consideration)
- United States v. Cubero, 754 F.3d 888 (11th Cir. 2014) (district court may weight § 3553(a) factors differently)
- United States v. Parks, 823 F.3d 990 (11th Cir. 2016) (§ 3553(c)(2) requires district court to state rationale for sentence in open court)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (substantive-reasonableness review considers totality of circumstances and any variance from Guidelines)
- United States v. Aguillard, 217 F.3d 1319 (11th Cir. 2000) (Chapter 7 policy statements are advisory; court must indicate awareness and consideration of them)
- United States v. Hofierka, 83 F.3d 357 (11th Cir. 1996) (abuse-of-discretion review when objections preserved)
- Singh v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 561 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir. 2009) (issues stated without argument are abandoned)