USA v. Matthew Taylor

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________

No. 20-10281
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________

D.C. Docket No. 2:19-cr-00010-SCJ-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MATTHEW TAYLOR,

Defendant-Appellant.
________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(June 15, 2020)

Before NEWSOM, LAGOA, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.

Case: 20-10281 Date Filed: 06/15/2020 Page: 1 of 7

2

PER CURIAM:

Matthew Taylor appeals the substantive reasonableness of the sentence
imposed upon revocation of Taylor’s supervised release. The district court
sentenced Taylor to 8 months’ imprisonment followed by an additional term of 12
months’ supervised release. No reversible error has been shown; we affirm.
In 2012, Taylor was convicted of tax evasion, structuring, wire fraud, and
possessing stolen property, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201, 31 U.S.C. §
5324(a)(3), and 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 2315. Taylor was sentenced to 90 months in
prison, followed by 3 years’ supervised release. Taylor was also ordered to make
restitution in the amount of $1,244,190.52.
Taylor’s supervised release began in 2017. In March 2019, a probation
officer petitioned the district court to revoke Taylor’s supervised release. The
amended petition charged Taylor with 35 supervised release violations: including
failure to pay restitution, timely file taxes, submit truthful and complete written
reports, provide accurate financial statements, maintain just one personal bank
account, disclose all other bank accounts, and obtain approval before transferring
assets.
Case: 20-10281 Date Filed: 06/15/2020 Page: 2 of 7

3

At the revocation hearing, Taylor admitted to 31 of the charged violations.
1

The district court revoked Taylor’s supervised release. After considering the
parties’ submissions, the guidelines range, and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, the
district court concluded that a sentence of 8 months’ imprisonment followed by 12
months’ supervised release was appropriate.
On appeal, Taylor does not challenge the revocation of his supervised
release. He argues, however, that his sentence is substantively unreasonable
because it is greater than necessary to achieve the purposes of sentencing.
When a defendant violates a condition of his supervised release, the district
court may revoke supervised release and impose a term of imprisonment. 18
U.S.C. § 3582(e)(3). In imposing a sentence upon revocation of supervised
release, the district court must consider (1) the nature and circumstances of the
offense, (2) the defendant’s history and characteristics, (3) the need for the
sentence to deter criminal conduct and to protect the public, (4) the need to provide
the defendant with educational training or medical care, (5) the advisory guidelines
range, (6) the policy statements of the Sentencing Commission, (7) the need to
avoid sentencing disparities, and (8) the need to provide restitution to victims. See
18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(e). “The weight to be accorded any given § 3553(a)

1
The government dropped three charged violations and parts of two other violations. Taylor
contested only Violation #35; the district court found a partial violation of Violation #35.
Case: 20-10281 Date Filed: 06/15/2020 Page: 3 of 7

4

factor is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the district court.” United
States v. Clay, 483 F.3d 739, 743 (11th Cir. 2007).
We review a sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release for
reasonableness in the light of the totality of the circumstances and the section
3553(a) factors. United States v. Trailer, 827 F.3d 933, 935-36 (11th Cir. 2016).
We evaluate the substantive reasonableness of a sentence under a deferential
abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). The
party challenging the reasonableness of the sentence bears the burden of
establishing that the sentence is unreasonable. Trailer, 827 F.3d at 936.
We conclude that Taylor’s sentence is substantively reasonable. First,
Taylor’s 8-month sentence was both within the advisory guidelines range of 3 to 9
months’ imprisonment and well below the statutory maximum sentence of 24
months -- factors that strengthen a finding of reasonableness. See United States v.
Dixon, 901 F.3d 1322, 1351 (11th Cir. 2018); United States v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d
1319, 1324 (11th Cir. 2008).
Briefly stated, Taylor contends that the supervised release violations were
mere “technical violations” -- not a new criminal offense -- and stresses that the
unapproved transactions were not treated as a set, but as individual violations for
each transaction. Taylor also asserts that he had resolved many of the violations
Case: 20-10281 Date Filed: 06/15/2020 Page: 4 of 7

5

before the revocation hearing and says he committed some violations
“unwillingly” based on his misunderstanding of his restitution obligations.
The district court rejected Taylor’s characterization of his violations as being
technical or unintentional. The district court found, instead, that Taylor had been
“directly and intentionally deceiving the probation office” and had failed to notify
the probation office about $175,000 in cash and the purchase of two cars. The
district court also noted a similarity between Taylor’s conviction for tax evasion
and Taylor’s acting evasively by moving money around while on supervised
release. The district court found expressly that the charged violations were not the
result of mistake, frustration, or errors, but -- instead -- evidenced “direct deception
and deceit.” The record supports the district court’s findings.
In the light of the nature and circumstances of Taylor’s many supervised
release violations and of Taylor’s history and characteristics, we accept that an 8-
month prison sentence followed by 12 months’ supervised release could be
reasonably thought to be necessary, among other things, to deter Taylor from
further criminal conduct and from further violating the terms of his supervised
release.
Case: 20-10281 Date Filed: 06/15/2020 Page: 5 of 7

6

We reject Taylor’s argument that the district court gave insufficient weight
to Taylor’s need for ongoing medical treatment.
2
The district court clearly
considered Taylor’s medical conditions and explained that the government would
“be responsible for any medical attention or medical needs” Taylor had. The
district court has considerable discretion in weighing the section 3553(a) factors.
See Clay, 483 F.3d at 743.
We have also previously rejected the argument that a defendant’s custodial
prison sentence should be shortened simply to allow the defendant to make
restitution payments. See United States v. Crisp, 454 F.3d 1285, 1291 (11th Cir.
2006). Moreover, that the government has legal authority to enforce restitution
payments from defendants not on supervised release does not make the imposition
of an additional term of supervised release substantively unreasonable.
Viewing the record as a whole, we are not “left with the definite and firm
conviction that the district court committed a clear error of judgment in weighing
the § 3553(a) factors by arriving at a sentence that lies outside the range of
reasonable sentences dictated by the facts of the case.” See Trailer, 827 F.3d at

2
At the revocation hearing, Taylor said he was receiving medical care for his heart problems,
high blood pressure, a mass behind his ear, and gastroenterological issues.
Case: 20-10281 Date Filed: 06/15/2020 Page: 6 of 7

7

936. The district court abused no discretion; we affirm Taylor’s sentence.
AFFIRMED.

Case: 20-10281 Date Filed: 06/15/2020 Page: 7 of 7