Caleb Prince appealed his federal sentence of 24 months' imprisonment for violating the conditions of his supervised release. Prince had been on federal supervised release following convictions for armed bank robbery and brandishing a firearm. While under that supervision, he committed a new state crime in Georgia and left the judicial district without permission. He was extradited to Georgia to face state charges before his federal revocation petition could be resolved. The district court sentenced Prince to 24 months for the federal violations, ordering this term to run consecutively to his 10-year state sentence. Prince argued this was an abuse of discretion because the parties had jointly recommended a concurrent sentence, and because he was extradited before he could complete his federal sentence first.
The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the imposition of consecutive sentences under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. The court began by noting that federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a), grants courts the discretion to select whether sentences run concurrently or consecutively. The court emphasized that the Sentencing Guidelines provide a clear policy favoring consecutive sentences in cases of supervised release violations. U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f) states that a term of imprisonment for a violation 'be ordered to be served consecutively to any sentence of imprisonment that the defendant is serving.' The court cited United States v. Flowers to reinforce that the Guidelines contain a 'policy favoring imposition of consecutive sentences in cases of violation of release.' The court addressed Prince's argument regarding the joint recommendation for a concurrent sentence. It held that while the district court must consider the § 3553(a) factors, a joint recommendation does not bind the court. The district court had considered the relevant factors, including the nature of the offense and the defendant's history. Although the district court made an inappropriate reference to 'promoting respect for the law'—a factor excluded from consideration under § 3583(e) for revocation proceedings—the court found this error harmless. The same operative facts regarding Prince's violent conduct were properly considered under the nature and circumstances of the offense factors. The court concluded that the district court did not commit a clear error of judgment by choosing a consecutive sentence, particularly given that Prince committed a new violent crime while on supervised release for a prior violent offense. Finally, the court found the sentence substantively reasonable because it was at the low end of the Guidelines range and the district court had mitigated the impact by ordering Prince's two separate federal violation sentences to run concurrently with each other.
This decision reinforces the Eleventh Circuit's stance that federal courts have significant latitude to impose consecutive sentences for supervised release violations, even when the defendant is already serving a state sentence. It clarifies that a joint recommendation for concurrent sentences is not binding on the district court. The ruling ensures that the Sentencing Guidelines' policy favoring consecutive sentences for release violations remains a primary consideration in sentencing. No remand instructions were issued; the judgment is affirmed.