Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-10-01007/USCOURTS-ca8-10-01007-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert Allen King
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

________________

No. 10-1007

________________

United States of America,

Appellee,

v.

Robert Allen King,

Appellant.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the District of

Minnesota.

[UNPUBLISHED]

______________

Submitted: June 14, 2010

 Filed: July 26, 2010

________________

Before LOKEN, ARNOLD and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

________________

PER CURIAM.

Robert King appeals the 30-month sentence that the district court1

 imposed

upon revocation of his supervised release. King argues that the court did not

adequately consider his sentencing arguments and that his sentence is unreasonable. 

For the following reasons, we affirm. 

1

The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, United States District Judge for the

District of Minnesota. 

Appellate Case: 10-1007 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/26/2010 Entry ID: 3686850
In 1997, King pled guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with the intent

to distribute cocaine and was sentenced to 132 months’ imprisonment and five years

of supervised release. King began his term of supervised release in November 2006. 

In March 2009, the court found that King violated the conditions of his supervised

release by using a controlled substance and violating a restraining order. The court

revoked King’s supervised release and sentenced him to 6 months’ imprisonment,

with his initial term of supervised release to continue after his release from prison. 

King was released from prison in August 2009, and his term of supervised release

continued. 

As a condition of King’s supervised release, he was required to participate in

inpatient treatment for substance abuse, as his probation officer directed. In

November 2009, King left his inpatient treatment facility without approval, and for

a time his whereabouts were unknown. King’s probation officer petitioned for

revocation of King’s supervised release. King was subsequently located and arrested.

In December 2009, the court held a revocation hearing. King admitted to

leaving his inpatient treatment facility without approval, and the court found that King

violated the conditions of his supervised release. King’s attorney and the Government

then presented arguments regarding an appropriate sentence for the violation. The

court also received a letter from King and heard from King himself. King’s advisory

guidelines ranges was 4 to 10 months’ imprisonment. See U.S.S.G § 7B1.4. The

court sentenced King to 30 months’ imprisonment. 

King argues that the court did not “sufficiently consider” his arguments for a

lesser sentence and that the 30-month sentence is “excessive.” We review King’s

sentence “under a deferential abuse of discretion standard.” See United States v. Bear

Robe, 521 F.3d 909, 911 (8th Cir. 2008). First, the revocation hearing transcript

shows that the court adequately considered King’s arguments, the letter King wrote

to the court, and the relevant statutory factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) in determining

-2-

Appellate Case: 10-1007 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/26/2010 Entry ID: 3686850
an appropriate sentence. The court expressly addressed King’s argument that he had

decided to stop using methamphetamine. Additionally, the court stated, “I read your

letter,” and addressed the declarations King made in the letter. Second, the court also

considered King’s criminal history, his repeated violations of the conditions of his

supervised release, his “thirty-year history of meth[amphetamine] addiction,” and the

“opportunity [for King] to participate in a drug treatment program” while in jail in

determining that a term of 30 months’ imprisonment was appropriate. In light of these

considerations, the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing King to 30

months’ imprisonment. See Bear Robe, 521 F.3d at 911. 

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 

_____________________________

-3-

Appellate Case: 10-1007 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/26/2010 Entry ID: 3686850