United States v. Derek Coleman Corker

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: April 19, 2018
• Docket: 17-13543
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 17-13543 Date Filed: 04/19/2018 Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________

No. 17-13543 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________

D.C. Docket No. 6:17-cr-00046-RBD-GJK-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DEREK COLEMAN CORKER,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida ________________________

(April 19, 2018)

Before MARTIN, JILL PRYOR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: Case: 17-13543 Date Filed: 04/19/2018 Page: 2 of 3

Derek Corker appeals his term and conditions of supervised release. On

appeal, Corker argues that the district court erred in failing to elicit objections after

it imposed its sentence.

Ordinarily, when a defendant does not object to the district court’s

imposition of the term and conditions of supervised release, we will review only

for plain error. United States v. Nash, 438 F.3d 1302, 1304 (11th Cir. 2006). If,

however, the district court fails to elicit objections after imposing a sentence, we

will review the sentence de novo. United States v. Johnson, 451 F.3d 1239, 1242

(11th Cir. 2006).

The district court must elicit fully articulated objections, following the

imposition of a sentence, to the court’s ultimate findings of fact and conclusions of

law. United States v. Jones, 899 F.2d 1097, 1102 (11th Cir. 1990), overruled on

other grounds, United States v. Morrill, 984 F.2d 1136 (11th Cir. 1993) (en banc).

We have held that when the district court merely asks if there is “anything

further?” or “anything else?” and neither party responds with objections, then the

district court has failed to elicit fully articulated objections, as is required by Jones.

United States v. Campbell, 473 F.3d 1345, 1348 (11th Cir. 2007). If a district court

fails to comply with Jones, we will normally vacate the sentence and remand to the

district court to give the parties an opportunity to present their objections. Id. at

2 Case: 17-13543 Date Filed: 04/19/2018 Page: 3 of 3

1347. Remanding to the district court is unnecessary if the record on appeal is

sufficient to enable review. Id.

Here, the district court did not comply with Jones because it did not

expressly elicit objections from Corker after imposing Corker’s sentence. Jones,

899 F.2d at 1102. Additionally, the district court’s question, “[a]nything else from

the defense?” did not satisfy Jones because it did not elicit an objection from

Corker. Campbell, 473 F.3d at 1348. A remand is necessary because the record

does not indicate why the district court chose ten years of supervised release, as

opposed to the statutory minimum term of five years supervised release, or why it

imposed the special conditions on computer use. Campbell, 473 F.3d at 1347.

Accordingly, we vacate and remand for resentencing on the term and conditions of

Corker’s supervised release.

VACATE AND REMAND.