United States v. Shannon Parks
823 F.3d 990
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Parks pleaded guilty in 2001 to being a felon in possession of a firearm and was later released from federal custody in September 2012 after a sentence reduction.
- In March 2015 Parks pled guilty in state court to burglary and grand theft, received credit for time served (455 days), and was taken into federal custody the same day for alleged supervised-release violations.
- The Government alleged two Grade B supervised-release violations; with Parks in criminal-history category VI the guidelines range for revocation was 21–27 months.
- At the revocation hearing Parks admitted the violations and asked for reinstatement of supervision; the district court revoked supervision and sentenced him to the statutory maximum of 60 months, crediting the 455 days already served.
- Parks’s counsel made a general objection to the sentence at sentencing; on appeal Parks argued the district court procedurally erred by (1) failing to acknowledge consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and (2) failing to state a specific reason for a non‑guideline sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2).
- The Eleventh Circuit held § 3553(c)(2) applies to supervised-release revocation sentences, reviewed the § 3553(c)(2) claim de novo, found no specific reasons were stated, vacated the sentence, and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 3553(c)(2) applies to supervised-release revocation sentences | Parks: § 3553(c)(2) applies and the court failed to provide required specific reasons for an above-guideline sentence | Gov: Some circuits view § 3553(c)(2) as inapplicable to revocations; but govt contested preservation and urged plain-error review | Held: § 3553(c)(2) does apply to supervised-release revocations |
| Whether the district court complied with § 3553(c)(2) by stating specific reasons for the 60-month sentence | Parks: No specific reasons were given on the record to justify the above-guideline statutory maximum | Gov: Court’s statements across the hearing (acknowledging guideline range, querying about state sentence, crediting jail time) supply an implicit reason | Held: Court failed to state specific reasons as required; reversal and remand for resentencing |
| Proper standard of review for § 3553(c)(2) and § 3553(a) claims when not specifically objected to at sentencing | Parks: Bonilla supports de novo review of § 3553(c) even without objection | Gov: Vandergrift and waiver doctrine require plain-error review because objections weren’t specific | Held: Reconciled the lines—review § 3553(c)(2) de novo (per Bonilla exception); review § 3553(a) claim for plain error (per Vandergrift); remand rendered § 3553(a) merits unnecessary |
| Whether a general contemporaneous objection preserved the specific statutory claims | Parks: Counsel’s objection preserved issues | Gov: General objection insufficient to preserve specific § 3553(a)/(c)(2) claims | Held: General objection did not preserve the specific claims for appeal; nevertheless § 3553(c)(2) was reviewable de novo and failed on the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Amedeo, 487 F.3d 823 (11th Cir. 2007) (district court need not discuss every § 3553(a) factor but must acknowledge consideration)
- United States v. Turner, 474 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir. 2007) (acknowledgment of § 3553(a) consideration required)
- United States v. Beckles, 565 F.3d 832 (11th Cir. 2009) (same principle on § 3553(a) acknowledgement)
- United States v. Johnson, 640 F.3d 195 (6th Cir. 2011) (holding § 3553(c)(2) applies to supervised-release revocation proceedings)
- In re Sealed Case, 527 F.3d 188 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (treating § 3553(c) as applicable to revocations and emphasizing need to state reasons)
- United States v. Lewis, 424 F.3d 239 (2d Cir. 2005) (applying § 3553(c) to supervised-release revocations)
- United States v. Vandergrift, 754 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir. 2014) (failure to object to procedural sentencing issues triggers plain-error review)
- United States v. Bonilla, 463 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir. 2006) (held compliance with § 3553(c) reviewed de novo even without contemporaneous objection)
- United States v. Suarez, 939 F.2d 929 (11th Cir. 1991) (reasons must be specific enough to permit meaningful appellate review)
- United States v. Delvecchio, 920 F.2d 810 (11th Cir. 1991) (establishing rule of reversal where § 3553(c)(2) explanations are absent)