Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01516/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01516-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Seth Zimmerman
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1516

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Seth Zimmerman, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 7, 2006

Filed: April 11, 2006

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Seth Zimmerman appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed following

revocation of his supervised release. We affirm.

While on supervised release, Zimmerman admittedly tested positive for

methamphetamine on five different occasions. Noting the provisions of 18 U.S.C.

§ 3583(g)(4) (if defendant, as part of drug testing, tests positive for illegal controlled

substance more than 3 times over course of 1 year, court shall revoke supervised

Appellate Case: 05-1516 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/11/2006 Entry ID: 2031289
-2-

release and require defendant to serve term of imprisonment), the district court

revoked Zimmerman’s supervised release and sentenced him to 18 months’

imprisonment and 18 months’ supervised release.

On appeal, Zimmerman argues that the district court failed to consider whether

he qualified for a substance-abuse treatment option as an exception to mandatory

revocation. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) (court shall consider whether availability of

appropriate substance-abuse treatment programs, or individual’s current or past

participation in such programs, warrants exception in accordance with Guidelines

from rule of § 3583(g) when considering any action against defendant who fails drug

test). We reject this argument. At sentencing, the district court asked the parties for

their views as to whether they would dispute the application of the mandatory

revocation provision. Based on their responses, which revealed that Zimmerman’s

drug problem took a turn for the worse while he was at a low-security facility and

during his supervised release, and that he failed to benefit from the treatment that was

provided to him, the court imposed an 18-month prison sentence which would allow

him to participate in a long-term residential drug-treatment program while confined.

We conclude the court did not abuse its discretion. See United States v. Hammonds,

370 F.3d 1032, 1038-39 (10th Cir. 2004) (standard of review; finding no abuse of

discretion where court did not make specific ruling rejecting application of § 3583(d),

because there was no indication court did not recognize its power to grant exception:

at sentencing defendant requested order directing treatment rather than revocation,

government noted defendant’s poor record in treatment programs, and court ordered

revocation with in-prison treatment); cf. United States v. Pierce, 132 F.3d 1207, 1207-

09 (8th Cir. 1997) (remanding where district court’s statements at revocation hearing

cast doubt on whether it realized it could order drug treatment as alternative to

revocation).

Accordingly, we affirm. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1516 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/11/2006 Entry ID: 2031289