United States v. Caleb Prince

── United States v. Caleb Prince ── Case No.: 24-14138 Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: March 30, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 24-14138 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 03/30/2026 Page: 1 of 6 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-14138 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CALEB PRINCE, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 9:11-cr-80176-WPD-1 ____________________ Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH, and BLACK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Caleb Prince appeals his sentence of 24 months’ imprison- ment for violation of his supervised release conditions, which the district court imposed consecutively to his 10-year state sentence USCA11 Case: 24-14138 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 03/30/2026 Page: 2 of 6 2 Opinion of the Court 24-14138 resulting from the same conduct. Prince contends the district court abused its discretion in ordering the sentences to run consecu- tively, contrary to the parties’ joint recommendation for a concur- rent sentence, because he was extradited to Georgia to face state charges before his federal revocation petition could be resolved, such that he was denied the opportunity to complete his federal sentence first. After review, 1 we affirm. “Federal courts generally have discretion to select whether the sentences they impose will run concurrently or consecutively with respect to other sentences that they impose, or that have been imposed in other proceedings, including state proceedings.” United States v. Gomez, 955 F.3d 1250, 1258 (11th Cir. 2020) (quotation marks and alterations omitted). Federal law provides, “if a term of imprisonment is imposed on a defendant who is already subject to an undischarged term of imprisonment, the terms may run concur- rently or consecutively.” 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a). Commentary to the Sentencing Guidelines provides, “any sentence of imprisonment for a criminal offense that is imposed after revocation of probation or supervised release be run consecutively to any term of impris- onment imposed upon revocation.” U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3, comment. (n.4) (2024). We have noted the Guidelines contain a “policy fa- voring imposition of consecutive sentences in cases of violation of release.” United States v. Flowers, 13 F.3d 395, 397 (11th Cir. 1994). 1 We review the imposition of consecutive sentences under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. United States v. Gomez, 955 F.3d 1250, 1255 (11th Cir. 2020). USCA11 Case: 24-14138 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 03/30/2026 Page: 3 of 6 24-14138 Opinion of the Court 3 The Guidelines also state a term of imprisonment resulting from a supervised-release violation “be ordered to be served consecutively to any sentence of imprisonment that the defendant is serving, whether or not the sentence of imprisonment being served resulted from the conduct that is the basis of the revocation of probation or supervised release.” U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f) (2024). “The court, in determining whether the terms imposed are to be ordered to run co