USA v. Ronald J. Anderson, III

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-12924
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RONALD J. ANDERSON, III,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 8:15-cr-00024-VMC-TGW-1
____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-12924 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 01/24/2023 Page: 1 of 7

-- 1 of 7 --

2 Opinion of the Court 22-12924
Before BRANCH , LAGOA , and BRASHER , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Ronald Anderson, III appeals his sentence of 30 days’
imprisonment followed by 59 months’ supervised release that the
district court imposed after revoking his supervised release.
Anderson argues that the new sentence is unlawful because the
district court failed to reduce his term of supervised release to
account for the time he already served in prison. This argument,
however, ignores that Anderson never served any time in prison.
Thus, there is no reduction to be made, and the district court did
not err. We affirm.
I. Background
After Anderson pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to
commit wire fraud and bank fraud, the district court adjudicated
him guilty and, in an amended judgment,1 sentenced him to “time
served” imprisonment to be followed by 60 months’ supervised
release. However, Anderson had not yet served prison time for the
fraud, so the “time served” imprisonment designation was
effectively no prison time at all.2 The district court explained that
1 The district court initially sentenced Anderson to 21 months’ imprisonment
to be followed by 60 months’ supervised release before entering its amended
judgment that zeroed out the imprisonment term.
2 The record indicates that Anderson was in jail for at most one day following
his initial arrest: “On February 5, 2015, [Anderson was] arrested and released
on a $50,000 non-surety appearance bond with supervision by pretrial
USCA11 Case: 22-12924 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 01/24/2023 Page: 2 of 7

-- 2 of 7 --

22-12924 Opinion of the Court 3
it wanted him to “avoid prison so that he could be with his family
and continue working to pay his restitution obligation.” Anderson
thanked the district court for its leniency by violating his supervised
release.3
To address Anderson’s violation, the district court revoked
his initial supervised release and imposed a new, substantially
similar, sentence—“time served” imprisonment to be followed by
59 months’ supervised release. Anderson again violated his
supervised release.4
Several years later, in light of Anderson’s repeated
violations, the district court held a supervised release revocation
hearing. At that hearing, the district court expressed its
disappointment that Anderson continued to exploit its leniency.
Importantly, the district court stressed that—due to its leniency—
Anderson had never been to prison:
[District Court]: Remind me, Mr. Anderson, did you
go to prison at all on this?
[Anderson]: No ma’am. . . .
services.” There is no evidence in the record that Anderson spent time in jail
on any day other than February 5, 2015.
3 Specifically, Anderson “[f]ail[ed] to make restitution in violation of the
Court’s Order,” “[f]ail[ed] to answer truthfully,” and “[f]ail[ed] to disclose
financial information.”
4 Specifically, Anderson “fail[ed] to submit a monthly report” and “fail[ed] to
make restitution.”
USCA11 Case: 22-12924 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 01/24/2023 Page: 3 of 7

-- 3 of 7 --

4 Opinion of the Court 22-12924
. . .
[District Court]: Okay. I didn’t think you went to
prison. I thought I gave you a break. . . . I’m going to
read to you what the probation officer said here.
They said: Mr. Anderson’s amended judgment in
2015 spared him from serving a term of incarceration,
as he was sentenced to time served followed by a five
year term of supervised release. . . .
Because there were difficulties calculating the amount of
restitution still owed by Anderson, the court continued the hearing
to a later date.
Before the final revocation hearing, Anderson filed a
sentencing memorandum. Included was a letter from Anderson
that thanked the district court for its leniency: “[Y]ou could have
given jail time instead of this gift you had chosen to graciously give
[in the previous sentencing orders].”
In the end, the district court again revoked Anderson’s
supervised release and issued a new sentence: 30 days’
imprisonment to be followed by 59 months’ supervised release.
The district court stressed that jail time was now necessary because
Anderson continued to “neglect[] his responsibilities” despite being
shown “so much mercy.”
Anderson appeals his sentence.
II. Standard of Review
USCA11 Case: 22-12924 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 01/24/2023 Page: 4 of 7

-- 4 of 7 --

22-12924 Opinion of the Court 5
Normally we review the district court’s imposition of a
supervised release sentence for abuse of discretion,
United States v.
Zinn, 321 F.3d 1084, 1087 (11th Cir. 2003), but if a defendant fails
to state clearly the grounds for an objection to his sentence in the
district court, we review for plain error,
United States v.
Vandergrift, 754 F.3d 1303, 1307 (11th Cir. 2014). Under plain error
review, the defendant must show: (1) an error, (2) that was plain,
and (3) that affected his substantial rights.
Id.
Anderson offered only a general objection to the district
court: “Your Honor, just for the record, we’d object to the
sentence.” He did not indicate the specific grounds for his
objection; thus, plain error is the proper standard of review.
Vandergrift, 754 F.3d at 1307.
III. Discussion
If a defendant violates his supervised release and is sentenced
to imprisonment, a court can require “that the defendant be placed
on a term of supervised release after imprisonment.” 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(h). The new term of supervised release cannot exceed the
statutory maximum term of supervised release for the defendant’s
underlying conviction,
id., which for Class B felonies is 60 months,
id. § 3583(b)(1). Further, the “maximum allowable supervised
release following multiple revocations must be reduced by the
aggregate length of any terms of imprisonment that have been
imposed upon revocation.”
United States v. Mazarky, 499 F.3d
1246, 1250 (11th Cir. 2007).
USCA11 Case: 22-12924 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 01/24/2023 Page: 5 of 7

-- 5 of 7 --

6 Opinion of the Court 22-12924
The calculation of Anderson’s maximum term of supervised
release is simple: sixty months (for Anderson’s maximum term of
supervised release for committing a Class B felony5 under
§ 3583(b)(1)), minus one month (for the term of imprisonment
required by the district court’s most recent sentencing order),
minus zero months (for the amount of prison time Anderson has
already served), for a total of fifty-nine months. The district court
reached exactly this result when it imposed a sentence of 30 days’
imprisonment to be followed by 59 months’ supervised release.
Anderson argues on appeal that he must be credited for the
prison time he already served. The problem for Anderson is that
there is no evidence that his “time served” was anything more than
no time at all.6 Indeed, the district court deliberately chose “time
5 Anderson pleaded guilty to a Class B felony (conspiracy to commit wire fraud
and bank fraud).
See 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a)(2) (classifying an offense as a Class B
felony if it “is not specifically classified by a letter grade in the section defining
it” and “the maximum term of imprisonment authorized is . . . twenty-five
years or more”); 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 1344 (defining the maximum prison terms
for wire fraud that affects a financial institution and bank fraud, which define
the penalties for the conspiracy crime that Anderson pleaded guilty to
according to 18 U.S.C. § 1349, as “not more than 30 years”).
6 Anderson’s counsel argues that a “time served” sentence implies that “Mr.
Anderson served some time in prison,” but admits that “[c]ounsel could not
glean from the record how much time Mr. Anderson served.” Counsel was
unable to “glean” how much time Anderson served in jail because, as the
district court noted: “He never went to jail. He never spent a day in jail other
than when he was arrested.” As for his arrest, the record indicates that “[o]n
February 5, 2015, [Anderson was] arrested and released on a $50,000 non-
surety appearance bond with supervision by pretrial services.”
USCA11 Case: 22-12924 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 01/24/2023 Page: 6 of 7

-- 6 of 7 --

22-12924 Opinion of the Court 7
served” as the term of imprisonment to keep him out of jail. And,
in the proceedings below, Anderson twice admitted that he never
served any time in prison.7
In sum, Anderson seeks credit for time he never served. We
do not buy his argument. Instead, we conclude that the district
court did not commit any error—much less a plain error—in his
sentencing.
See Vandergrift, 754 F.3d at 1307. As such, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
7 The first admission was during the revocation hearing when he replied “[n]o
ma’am” to the district court’s question “[r]emind me, Mr. Anderson, did you
go to prison at all on this?” The second admission was in a formal letter to the
court: “you could have given jail time instead [of being lenient].”
USCA11 Case: 22-12924 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 01/24/2023 Page: 7 of 7

-- 7 of 7 --