Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
United States v. Ashanti Sweeting
Citations: 437 F.3d 1105; 2006 WL 177411Docket: 05-11062
Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit; January 26, 2006; Federal Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Ashanti Sweeting appeals a 24-month sentence imposed after the revocation of his supervised release under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). He had been sentenced to 100 months imprisonment for distributing cocaine base, followed by four years of supervised release. His sentences were later reduced to 26 months for substantial assistance in other prosecutions. While on supervised release, Sweeting was convicted in a separate case for additional drug distribution, leading to the revocation of his supervised release for two prior cases. The district court sentenced him to a consecutive two-year term in case no. 99-10029, running consecutively to his ten-year sentence in case no. 03-10010. On appeal, Sweeting contends that the imposition of a consecutive sentence for the same violation constitutes an abuse of discretion, effectively adding five years to his sentence for identical violations, which he claims exceeds the applicable Guideline recommendation and is unreasonable. The court references the standard for reviewing such sentences, noting that prior to *United States v. Booker*, sentences were reviewed for being "plainly unreasonable." Following *Booker*, the review standard shifted to "reasonableness," which has been interpreted similarly to the prior standard by various circuits. Sweeting's sentence will be assessed for reasonableness considering the factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) after a finding of a supervised release violation. Section 3553(a) mandates that district courts consider several factors when imposing a sentence, including: the offense's nature and circumstances, the defendant's history and characteristics, the need for the sentence to reflect the offense's seriousness, promote respect for the law, and provide just punishment, as well as the sentencing range established by the Guidelines. Several unpublished opinions from this circuit support these considerations. In the case of Sweeting, who violated his supervised release by committing a controlled substance offense, the district court's decision to impose a two-year imprisonment sentence was deemed reasonable. Sweeting admitted to violating his release conditions, allowing the court to revoke his release under 18 U.S.C. 3583(e). The two-year sentence is below the recommended Guidelines range of 33 to 41 months and within the statutory maximum for a Class B or C felony. The district court adequately considered the 3553(a) factors, including Sweeting’s criminal history and public safety concerns. Additionally, the imposition of a consecutive sentence fell within the court's discretion as per 18 U.S.C. 3584(a). Thus, Sweeting's sentence was affirmed as reasonable and in compliance with statutory and Guideline parameters.