United States v. Justin Mosely, 571 F. App'x 808

Justin Mosely pleaded guilty in 2010 to theft from a federal firearm licensee and received 24 months’ imprisonment followed by three years’ supervised release.
His supervised release was revoked in October 2012 for drug use and associating with criminal associates; he was sent to prison for six months and given two more years of supervised release.
A second revocation petition (Aug. 16, 2013) alleged possession of a controlled substance and improper associations; Mosely admitted the violations at the revocation hearing.
The district court imposed a 14-month imprisonment term (with 16 months of supervised release to follow), noting it had considered the Chapter 7 policy statements and discussing Mosely’s history and the circumstances of the violations.
Mosely did not object at sentencing to any procedural omissions; on appeal he argued the sentence was procedurally unreasonable because the court failed to state the advisory guideline range and explicitly consider the § 3553(a) factors.
The Eleventh Circuit reviewed for plain error and affirmed, finding the district court adequately considered relevant factors and Mosely had not shown prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court procedurally erred by failing to state the advisory guideline range and explicitly address § 3553(a) factors at supervised-release revocation sentencing	Mosely: court failed to consider advisory guideline range and other § 3553(a) factors, making sentence procedurally unreasonable	Government/District Court: record shows consideration of defendant’s history, circumstances, parties’ arguments, and Chapter 7 policy statements (which encompass advisory range and § 3553(a))	No plain error; court’s statements and record sufficiently show consideration of factors and explanation of sentence
Whether Mosely established prejudice necessary for plain-error relief	Mosely: omissions affected substantial rights and fairness; would have received lower sentence but for errors	Government: Mosely bears burden to show a reasonable probability of a lower sentence; sentence was within statutory maximum and only modest variance	Mosely failed to show prejudice or reasonable probability of lower sentence; plain-error review not satisfied

United States v. Rodriguez, 627 F.3d 1372 (11th Cir. 2010) (plain-error standard for unpreserved sentencing challenges)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (district court must consider § 3553(a) factors but need not address each factor on the record)
United States v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319 (11th Cir. 2008) (an acknowledgment of consideration of § 3553(a) plus parties’ arguments suffices)
United States v. Campbell, 473 F.3d 1345 (11th Cir. 2007) (factors to consider when revoking supervised release)
United States v. Cartwright, 413 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2005) (defendant must show prejudice to prevail on plain-error sentencing claim)
United States v. Rodriguez, 398 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2005) (defendant’s burden to show prejudice under plain-error review)