USA v. Reginald Lenard Blue, No. 11-16113 (11th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 11-16113 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 2:00-cr-00073-MEF-WC-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. REGINALD LENARD BLUE, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama ________________________ (October 4, 2012) Before MARCUS, JORDAN and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: After finding that Reginald Blue had violated the terms of his supervised release, the district court sentenced him to 36 months of imprisonment, followed by 24 months of supervised release. On appeal, Mr. Blue challenges his sentence, arguing that the district court incorrectly characterized his violations as Grade B violations under the Sentencing Guidelines, and that the sentence was substantively unreasonable. After review of the record and the parties briefs, we affirm. First, the district court correctly concluded that one of the violations was a Grade B violation and that Mr. Blue had an advisory range of 21-27 months imprisonment under Chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines. See D.E. 210 at 115. One of Mr. Blue s violations was the filing of a false monthly report with the probation office, and because such a violation fit[s] within the conduct covered by [18 U.S.C.] § 1001, and that statute provides a term of imprisonment of up to five years, the district court did not err in concluding that the false statements [in the monthly report] constituted [a] Grade B violation under the Guidelines. United States v. Grimes, 54 F.3d 489, 492 (8th Cir. 1995). See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1(a)(2) ( conduct constituting any other federal, state, or local offense punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year is a Grade B violation). Second, reviewing under the deferential abuse of discretion standard, see Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007), we cannot say that the 36-month sentence was substantively unreasonable. The Sentencing guidelines provide that an upward 2 departure from the Chapter 7 advisory range may be appropriate where the original sentence was the result of a downward departure (e.g., as a reward for substantial assistance) . . . that resulted in a sentence below the guideline range applicable to the defendant s conduct [.]. U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4, comment. n.4. The district court, while discussing the relevant sentencing factors, specifically relied on this rationale, noting that Mr. Blue had received a downward departure from 360 months to 120 months at his original sentencing due to his cooperation. See D.E. 210 at 123 ( I find that this variance upward is warranted because of the substantial departure that you received for your original sentence. I also find that the sentence is a reasonable one based upon the seriousness of the offense, the need to promote respect for the law and provide just punishment for the offense, to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct; to protect from any further crimes of you, Mr. Blue, and to provide you with the need[ed] . . . care or . . . treatment [.]. ) (emphasis added). Mr. Blue s 36-month sentence is affirmed. 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.
