Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-15-03906/USCOURTS-ca8-15-03906-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Gerald Wright
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-3906

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Gerald Wright

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids

____________

 Submitted: October 17, 2016

Filed: October 27, 2016

[Unpublished]

____________

Before MURPHY, BEAM, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 15-3906 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/27/2016 Entry ID: 4463428 
Gerald Wright appeals the district court's revocation of his supervised release

1

and imposition of a ten-month term of imprisonment. For the reasons discussed

below, we affirm. 

I. BACKGROUND

On October 14, 2004, Wright was charged in a one-count information with

conspiracy to manufacture and distribute 50 grams or more ofmethamphetamine after

a prior conviction for a felony drug offense, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1),

841(b)(1)(B), 846, and 851. The prior felony drug offense occurred in 1988 when

Wright was convicted of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. On

October 25, 2004, Wright pled guilty. With a criminal history category of III, his

United States Sentencing Guidelines range was 135 to 168 months. He was

sentenced to 101 months in prison with eight years of supervised release to follow. 

On July 22, 2011, Wright began his original term of supervised release. On April 6,

2012, he was cited for having an open container. The district court modified the

terms of his supervised release without a hearing to include participation in the

Remote Alcohol Testing Program for up to 120 days. After this modification, Wright

refused to participate in the requisite substance abuse treatment seven times and failed

to submit monthly reports three times, a total of ten violations of his supervised

release. At Wright's revocation hearing on May 6, 2015, the district court decided

against a term of imprisonment and modified the conditions of his release to include

40 hours of community service to be completed within 60 days. Wright failed to

complete the required community service hours, and on July 16, 2015, at his second

revocation hearing, he was sentenced to two weekends in prison.

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

1

the Northern District of Iowa. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 15-3906 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/27/2016 Entry ID: 4463428 
On August 7, 2015, Wright provided a diluted urine sample. Because a diluted

sample cannot be tested, it automatically counted as a violation of the conditions of

his supervised release. On September 22, 2015, Wright's probation officer learned

that a September 3 drug test came back presumptively positive for marijuana. When

confronted, Wright admitted that he had smoked marijuana approximately ten times

and that he had smoked as recently as September 20. A drug test on September 25,

2015, was also presumptively positive for marijuana. On October 8, 2015, prior to

Wright's third scheduled revocation hearing, he again tested positive for marijuana. 

 

At the revocation hearing at issue in this case, held on November 30, 2015, the

district court discussed the numeroussupervised release violations mentioned above. 

It also noted that the court had been extremely lenient in the original sentence and in

each subsequent supervised release modification. The court took into account the

services offered to Wright, which included participation in a residential drug abuse

program, substance abuse and self-control program, and maintenance of a responsible

thinking journal, as well as mental health treatment for depression and anxiety. The

court also reviewed his criminal history, which consists of several possession-ofcontrolled-substance charges, possession with intent to distribute, domestic abuse,

criminal mischief, and a conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The

court finally observed that Wright was employed and currently living with his

girlfriend. 

According to § 7B1.1 of the Guidelines, the violations of Wright's supervised

release were all Grade C violations, meaning the offenses were "punishable by a term

of imprisonment of one year or less; or . . . a violation of any other condition of

supervision." U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1(a)(3). With a criminal history level of III at the time

of the original sentence, the Guidelines range was five to eleven months'

imprisonment. When arguing for a sentence at the lower end of the Guidelines range,

Wright's attorney acknowledged Wright's mental health issues but belabored his

alleged ability to change with help and the possibility of Wright continuing his job

-3-

Appellate Case: 15-3906 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/27/2016 Entry ID: 4463428 
when he returned from prison. The court "carefully considered the

options . . . available; and . . . considered the factors at 18 United States Code Section

3553(a)." The court also noted that it "tried . . . to help [Wright] turn things around,

by helping him connect with the services that he needs" and "tried to be supportive,

in that in the prior revocations, [the court had not] sent him back to prison." 

However, because Wright did not seem to be "coming to grips with the issues that he

has" or "working on his problems," the court sentenced him to ten months'

imprisonment and two years ofsupervised release. Wright now appeals, arguing that

the district court erred by failing to fully and carefully consider all of the § 3553(a)

factors and imposing an unreasonable sentence.

II. DISCUSSION

We review the district court's decision to revoke supervised release for an

abuse of discretion. United States v. Carothers, 337 F.3d 1017, 1019 (8th Cir. 2003). 

"A district court abuses its discretion and imposes an unreasonable sentence when it

fails to consider a relevant and significant factor, gives significant weight to an

irrelevant or improper factor, or considersthe appropriate factors but commits a clear

error of judgment in weighing those factors." United States v. Growden, 663 F.3d

982, 984 (8th Cir. 2011) (quoting United States v. Kreitinger, 576 F.3d 500, 503 (8th

Cir. 2009)). A prison sentence within the Guidelines is presumptively reasonable,

United States v. Scales, 735 F.3d 1048, 1052 (8th Cir. 2013), and the defendant bears

the burden ofrebutting this presumption, United States v. Goodale, 738 F.3d 917, 926

(8th Cir. 2013).

Wright argues that the district court erred by failing to consider all of the

statutory factors found in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We disagree. The court specifically

stated that "in arriving at this sentence [it took] into account and consideration all the

factors at 18 United States Code Section 3553(a) that apply in a revocation situation."

The court took into account Wright's mental health, substance abuse history,

-4-

Appellate Case: 15-3906 Page: 4 Date Filed: 10/27/2016 Entry ID: 4463428 
extensive criminal history, and repeated violations of the conditions of his release, as

well asthe seriousness of the underlying conviction. It also "carefully considered the

options . . . available." 

According to Wright, although the court considered some of the § 3553(a)

factors, it deliberately overlooked the mitigating factors. However, the court is not

required to "make specific findings on the record about each" § 3553(a) factor. 

United States v. Fry, 792 F.3d 884, 891 (8th Cir. 2015) (quoting United States v.

Deegan, 605 F.3d 625, 630 (8th Cir. 2010)). And here, where Wright's counsel

presented arguments for a sentence at the lower end of the Guidelines range based on

certain § 3553(a) factors, "we may presume that the court considered those factors."

United States v. Keating, 579 F.3d 891, 893 (8th Cir. 2009). Ultimately, "[t]he

district court's decision to place greater emphasis in this case on factors that favored

a sentence within the advisory range . . . [rather] than on other § 3553(a) factors that

might favor a more lenient sentence is a permissible exercise of the [court's]

considerable discretion" allowed under the abuse-of-discretion standard of review. 

United States v. Ruelas-Mendez, 556 F.3d 655, 658 (8th Cir. 2009).

Wright's argument that this sentence does not promote respect for the law or

provide just punishment for the offense is also without merit. The court imposed a

lenient original sentence, sentencing Wright below the Guidelines range, and later

modified the terms of his release twice before sentencing him to any prison time for

numerous violations of his supervised release. The punishment reasonably increased

with the number of violations to provide "both specific and general deterrence."

United States v. Hum, 766 F.3d 925, 928 (8th Cir. 2014). Thus, the district court

adequately considered the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Because the sentence was

within the Guidelines range, we "apply a presumption of reasonableness," Gall v.

United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007), and Wright has not presented evidence to rebut

this presumption. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion by revoking

Wright's supervised release and imposing a ten-month term of imprisonment. 

-5-

Appellate Case: 15-3906 Page: 5 Date Filed: 10/27/2016 Entry ID: 4463428 
III. CONCLUSION 

The judgment of the district court is affirmed. 

______________________________

-6-

Appellate Case: 15-3906 Page: 6 Date Filed: 10/27/2016 Entry ID: 4463428