Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03313/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03313-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Jeremy L. White
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3313

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Western

* District of Missouri.

Jeremy L. White, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 13, 2007

Filed: March 21, 2007

___________

Before COLLOTON, BEAM, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

On January 19, 2006, the district court1

 sentenced White to three years of

probation after he pled guilty to the charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm.

Within months of sentencing, White violated his probation in multiple ways–by

failing to successfully participate in a program of home detention, failing to notify the

probation officer within ten days prior to a change in residence or employment, and

failing to successfully participate in a substance abuse counseling program. On

September 7, 2006, the court revoked White's probation and sentenced him to twentyAppellate Case: 06-3313 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/21/2007 Entry ID: 3290361
-2-

four months' imprisonment. White appeals, arguing that we should reverse and

remand for resentencing because the district court failed to acknowledge the policy

statements and revocation table in chapter seven of the Guidelines and failed to

adequately address the factors set forth in section 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

We review revocation sentences post-Booker under the unreasonableness

standard and find nothing unreasonable here. United States v. Griggs, 431 F.3d 1110,

1115 (8th Cir. 2005). The court did not exceed any boundaries by sentencing White

to twenty-four months' imprisonment upon revocation. To begin with, "[w]e have

long recognized the purely advisory nature of the Chapter 7 policy statements related

to the revocation of supervised release." United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 922

(8th Cir. 2006). 

Further, the court's sentencing colloquy reveals that it did, in fact, consider and

discuss the factors suggested by section 3553(a) even though it did not particularly

elucidate section 3553(a). After pointing out the flagrancy with which White violated

his probation, the court discussed the many factors influencing its decision to impose

imprisonment: (1) clearly probation was not going to effectuate any behavioral change

in White; (2) White's history reflected a tendency toward violence, and yet White

continued to blame others for his failings; (3) White did not respect the leniency of the

initial sentence he was given; (4) the length of the imposed sentence would facilitate

rehabilitation efforts and effective correctional treatment; (5) White needed a "wakeup call," and most importantly; (6) White needed to understand that his actions set in

motion "serious consequences." The court also especially noted that White is young

and in the end, determined that twenty-four months was long enough to send a

message yet short enough to allow White an opportunity to start over upon release.

Each of the court's reasons supports the sentence imposed. Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3313 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/21/2007 Entry ID: 3290361