Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01376/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01376-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mark A. Hunt
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1376

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States 

v. * District Court for the Eastern District

* of Missouri. 

Mark A. Hunt, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 16, 2007

Filed: March 27, 2007

___________

Before MELLOY, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM. 

Mark Hunt was previously convicted of the felony offense of possession of a

firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime and sentenced to sixty

months of incarceration and a five-year term of supervised release. The terms of

Hunt’s supervised release included a requirement that Hunt refrain from committing

additional crimes. While on supervised release, Hunt was indicted and pleaded guilty

to the felony offenses of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute

heroin; distribution of heroin; and possession with intent to distribute heroin. Hunt

was sentenced to a total of ninety-six months of incarceration for these new

convictions. 

Appellate Case: 06-1376 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/27/2007 Entry ID: 3292180
1

 The Honorable Donald J. Stohr, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri. 

-2-

At a supervised release revocation hearing, Hunt admitted he violated the terms

of his supervised release by, among other things, committing the felony offenses listed

above. The district court1

 sentenced Hunt to fifty-eight months of imprisonment, to

be served consecutively to the term of incarceration for his new convictions. Hunt

appeals, arguing that his revocation sentence is unreasonable. We affirm. 

Hunt’s sentence is not unreasonable. See United States v. Tyson, 413 F.3d 824,

825 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (stating that, after United States v. Booker, 543 U.S.

220 (2005), revocation sentences are reviewed for unreasonableness). The sentence

is within authorized limits. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). The court considered

appropriate factors in imposing the revocation sentence, including the nature of the

violations, the need for general deterrence, and the pertinent policy statements in

Chapter 7 of the United State Sentencing Guidelines. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3583(e)(3);

3553(a). Notably, the same judge who imposed Hunt’s original sentence presided

over his revocation. Thus, the district court was familiar with Hunt’s history and

characteristics. See United States v. Franklin, 397 F.3d 604, 607 (8th Cir. 2005)

(considering, among other things, the district court’s familiarity with the defendant

from imposing the original sentence in finding no abuse of discretion in the revocation

sentence). 

We further conclude that requiring the sentence to be served consecutively did

not render it unreasonable. It was well within the district court’s discretion to impose

a consecutive sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a); United States v. Cotroneo, 89 F.3d

510, 512-13 (8th Cir. 1996).

Accordingly, we affirm. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1376 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/27/2007 Entry ID: 3292180