USA v. Corey Deon Charles, No. 07-12803 (11th Cir. 2007)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 07-12803 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT November 28, 2007 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK D. C. Docket No. 06-00114-CR-J-32HTS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus COREY DEON CHARLES, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _________________________ (November 28, 2007) Before BARKETT, WILSON and PRYOR , Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Corey Deon Charles appeals his sentence following the revocation of supervised release, arguing that the district court s twenty-one month sentence was unreasonable. Charles admitted to violating the conditions of his supervised release. During the sentencing portion of Charles s revocation hearing, the district court judge considered sentencing him to time-served plus seven days imprisonment so that Charles could take advantage of the probation officer s different drug and mental health treatment options upon release. When Charles reacted vociferously to the probation officer s suggestion that he wear a monitoring bracelet on his ankle upon release, the district court continued sentencing. At the continued sentencing hearing, the district court sentenced Charles to 21 months imprisonment. Charles argues that the district court had to consider the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and its decision to sentence him to 21 months imprisonment was unreasonable given that it had previously considered sentencing him to timeserved plus seven days imprisonment. Where a defendant under supervised release possesses a controlled substance, he is subject to mandatory revocation of his supervised release and a prison term not in excess of the statutory maximum. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g)(1). We have previously determined that when revocation of supervised release is mandatory under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g), the statute does not require consideration of 2 the § 3553(a) factors. Thus, to the extent that Charles argues that the district court did not adequately consider the § 3553(a) factors in sentencing him, that argument fails because the district court was not required to consider those factors as Charles s revocation for drug possession was mandatory. We note, that, in any event, the district court did consider the § 3553(a) factors, and the record reflects that Charles s sentence was not unreasonable. AFFIRMED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
