USA v. Cedric Eugene Corl, No. 12-15496 (11th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 12-15496 Date Filed: 05/02/2013 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ______________________ No. 12-15496 Non-Argument Calendar ______________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cr-00011-SPM-GRJ-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CEDRIC EUGENE CORL, Defendant-Appellant. _______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida _______________________ (May 2, 2013) Before TJOFLAT, PRYOR, and JORDAN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Cedric Corl pled guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. § 2259(a) by failing to register as required by the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, 42 U.S.C. § 16901 et seq. The district court sentenced him to 18 months imprisonment, to be Case: 12-15496 Date Filed: 05/02/2013 Page: 2 of 3 followed by a 10-year term of supervised release. On appeal, Mr. Corl challenges the supervised release term as substantively unreasonable, arguing that the district did not adequately justify such a lengthy period of supervised release. Insofar as procedural and substantive reasonableness concerned, our review is for abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). For the reasons which follow, we affirm. We find no abuse of discretion with respect to the 10-year term of supervised release. First, we note that the district court had to impose a minimum 5-year term of supervised release, and could have placed Mr. Corl on supervised release for life. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k). Second, Mr. Corl had two prior convictions for sex-related misconduct (a battery in 1999 for improperly touching an 8-year old girl and an attempted second-degree rape in 2005 involving his nephew s girlfriend). See Presentence Investigation Report at ¶¶ 31-32. Third, Mr. Corl had failed to register as a sex offender for several years following his release from prison in 2008. See Change of Plea Hearing Transcript [D.E. 49] at 17-18. On this record, the district court had sufficient reason to conclude that a lengthy term of supervision [was] warranted. See Order on Defendant s Objection to Sentence [D.E. 39] at 1. See also United States v. Brewer, 628 F.3d 975, 978 (8th Cir. 2010) (upholding 15-year term of supervised release for defendant who failed to register as a sex offender). 2 Case: 12-15496 Date Filed: 05/02/2013 Page: 3 of 3 We also find no procedural error. Not only did the district court expressly say that a lengthy term of supervised release was necessary, the record showed that Mr. Corl traveled to other states to work as a welder, and the district court explained that during the term of supervised release the probation officer can help [Mr. Corl] comply with the registration requirements and allow him to engage in work opportunities. See Order on Defendant s Objection to Sentence at 1. This is not a case like United States v. Fraga, 704 F.3d 432, 441-42 (5th Cir. 2013), where the district court erred by suggesting that it automatically defaulted to the imposition of a lifetime term of supervised release. 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.
