Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02579/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02579-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charles Marion
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The HONORABLE RICHARD G. KOPF, United States District Judge for the

District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2579

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Charles Marion, also known as Lucky, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 13, 2006

Filed: May 16, 2006

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, BOWMAN and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Charles Marion appeals the twenty-four-month prison sentence imposed by the

district court1

 after Marion admitted committing multiple violations of the conditions

of his supervised release, and the court revoked supervised release. Marion argues

that the sentence is unreasonably excessive. We affirm.

Marion pleaded guilty to a drug offense in May 2000. The district court granted

the government’s motion for downward departure and sentenced Marion to sixty

Appellate Case: 05-2579 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/16/2006 Entry ID: 2045186
-2-

months in prison. He began a four-year term of supervised release on June 6, 2004.

At the May 27, 2005, revocation hearing, Marion admitted the following Grade C

violations of the conditions of supervised release: he pleaded guilty in state court to

misdemeanor assault of a former girlfriend in August 2004, and his urine tested

positive for drug abuse on September 20, 2004, March 24, 2005, and April 17, 2005.

In addition, at the time of the hearing, charges were pending in state court charging

him with assaulting another former girlfriend on April 17, 2005.

The district court revoked supervised release and, with the parties’ consent,

proceeded to determine the appropriate revocation sentence. The court considered the

8-14 month range recommended in the Guidelines policy statements, see U.S.S.G.

§ 7B1.4(a); the argument of Marion’s counsel that he should remain on supervised

release because he had been accepted into a Salvation Army drug treatment and anger

management program; the recommendation of the probation officer that Marion be

sentenced to 24 months in prison with no supervised release to follow; and the

sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The court sentenced the 41-yearold Marion to 24 months in prison followed by no further supervised release and

urged the Bureau of Prisons to enroll Marion in its intensive drug treatment program.

The court explained:

I have imposed this sentence above the Guideline range because the

defendant was previously a beneficiary of a downward departure,

because his conduct is associated with the risk of -- high risk of new

felonious conduct, and the defendant is in need of drug or alcohol

treatment that can be best provided in prison.

On appeal, Marion argues that the revocation sentence is excessive because it

is beyond the range recommended by the Guidelines and because the district court

overlooked Marion’s acceptance into a Salvation Army work therapy program that

would be consistent with the need “to provide the defendant with needed educational

Appellate Case: 05-2579 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/16/2006 Entry ID: 2045186
-3-

or vocational training . . . or other correctional treatment in the most effective

manner.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(D). 

It is well-settled that the sentencing court must consider the Guidelines policy

statements but “is entirely free to impose a revocation sentence outside of the policy

statements’ suggested range when, ‘in its considered discretion,’ such a sentence is

warranted.” United States v. Jasper, 338 F.3d 865, 867 (8th Cir. 2003). Here, the

district court considered all relevant factors and then imposed a 24-month revocation

sentence for sound reasons very similar to those that supported the 46-month

revocation sentence we affirmed in United States v. Cotton, 399 F.3d 913, 915 (8th

Cir. 2005). There was no abuse of the court’s sentencing discretion.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2579 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/16/2006 Entry ID: 2045186