Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01472/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01472-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Christopher L. Dion
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Charles B. Kornmann, United States District Judge for the

District of South Dakota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

Nos. 05-1472/1477

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeals from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of South Dakota.

Christopher L. Dion, also known as *

Christopher L. Sturgeon, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 2, 2006

Filed: May 2, 2006

___________

Before MELLOY, FAGG, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Christopher Dion previously pleaded guilty to third degree burglary, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 1153(a). Later the same year he pleaded guilty to

larceny, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 661 and 1153(a). He was sentenced to

consecutive terms of 24 months and 12 months in prison, and to concurrent terms of

3 years of supervised release, and was ordered to pay restitution. The district court1

later revoked supervised release for both offenses upon Dion’s admission that he had

Appellate Case: 05-1472 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/02/2006 Entry ID: 2039806
-2-

violated the conditions of his supervised release by failing to answer truthfully all

inquiries by the probation officer and by failing to follow the probation officer’s

instructions. The court imposed revocation sentences of 24 months and 12 months in

prison, to be served consecutively. On appeal, Dion argues that the sentences are

excessive and that the court abused its discretion. 

The sentences are not unreasonable. See United States v. Tyson, 413 F.3d 824,

825 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (after United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005),

revocation sentences are reviewed for unreasonableness). Both prison terms were

within authorized limits, and the district court considered appropriate factors in

imposing the revocation sentences, including not only Dion’s conduct resulting in the

revocation but his abusive conduct toward his jailers while he was being detained

pending these proceedings. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(1), (2)(B)-(C), 3583(e)(3);

Tyson, 413 F.3d at 825-26 (sentence within statutory range and grounded in concerns

regarding defendant’s past behavior was not unreasonable). 

We also conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in imposing

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

510, 512-13 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1018 (1996).

Accordingly, we affirm, and we also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1472 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/02/2006 Entry ID: 2039806