Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03865/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03865-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Nelson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Richard H. Battey, United States District Judge for the District

of South Dakota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3865

___________

United States of America, *

*

 Appellee, *

* Appeal From the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of South Dakota.

Michael Nelson, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 14, 2006

Filed: July 12, 2006 

___________

Before SMITH, HEANEY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges

___________

HEANEY, Circuit Judge.

Michael Nelson appeals the district court’s1

 imposition of a twenty-four month

sentence of imprisonment following Nelson’s violation of terms of his supervised

release. We affirm.

Appellate Case: 05-3865 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/12/2006 Entry ID: 2066571
2

See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(vii).

3

See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e), USSG § 5K1.1.

-2-

BACKGROUND

Nelson originally pled guilty to the offense of conspiracy to manufacture

marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1). Although Nelson was

subject to a five-year mandatory minimum sentence,2

 he received a sentence of

twenty-four months based on his substantial assistance to the government,3

 to be

followed by four years of supervised release. 

On June 30, 2005, the probation office filed a petition to revoke Nelson’s

supervised release. The petition alleged that Nelson had tested positive for controlled

substances on four separate occasions from August 4, 2004 to June 17, 2005. It

further stated that Nelson was offered treatment after his first positive test, but

declined any assistance. According to the petition, a search of Nelson’s dwelling

uncovered approximately thirty urine test kits.

At the revocation hearing, Nelson admitted that he had possessed and used

marijuana and cocaine, in violation of his supervised release. All parties agreed that

Nelson’s advisory guidelines range was four to ten months of imprisonment, with a

maximum sentence of thirty-six months of imprisonment. See USSG § 7B1.4, p.s.

(advisory sentencing table); 18 U.S.C. §§ 3583(e)(3), 3559(a)(2) (setting maximum

sentence for supervised release violations at three years of imprisonment for Class B

felonies). The district court considered Nelson’s numerous letters of support, his

attorney’s request that the court consider continuing the hearing so that Nelson could

receive treatment, and Nelson’s own eloquent statement. Nonetheless, the court

determined that, due primarily to Nelson’s lengthy history of drug abuse as well as the

relatively lenient sentence he originally received, a sentence of twenty-four months

Appellate Case: 05-3865 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/12/2006 Entry ID: 2066571
-3-

of imprisonment, with no supervised release to follow, was appropriate. Nelson

appeals.

ANALYSIS

Chapter 7 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines sets forth advisory policy

statements related to the revocation of supervised release. See generally USSG § 7B.

This section of the guidelines includes a suggested range of punishment, which varies

based on the type of offense and criminal history of the offender. USSG § 7B1.4.

This sentencing range is advisory. United States v. Edwards, 400 F.3d 591, 592-93

(8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam). In fashioning an appropriate revocation sentence, the

district court is to consider the sentencing range, but also “must take into account

certain of the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including the statutory goals of

deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation; the pertinent circumstances of the

individual case; applicable policy statements; sentencing uniformity; and restitution.”

United States v. Cotton, 399 F.3d 913, 916 (8th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). We

review the sentence imposed to determine whether it is unreasonable in relation to the

above-stated factors. United States v. Tyson, 413 F.3d 824, 825 (8th Cir. 2005) (per

curiam).

We are satisfied that the sentence imposed here is not unreasonable. Nelson

complains that he would have been better served through an inpatient treatment

facility than through incarceration. The district court, which benefitted from

sentencing Nelson originally, determined that Nelson’s long history of drug use made

it unlikely that he would respond to inpatient treatment. The court thus considered

whether treatment would further the goal of rehabilitation, and concluded it would not,

at least in the manner that Nelson suggested.

At the sentencing hearing, the district court made clear that the sentence

imposed was necessary to further the goals of deterrence and incapacitation. Although

Appellate Case: 05-3865 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/12/2006 Entry ID: 2066571
-4-

this was technically Nelson’s first revocation hearing, the court was presented with

four violations. Moreover, the unobjected-to petition and supplemental presentence

report stated that Nelson had previously submitted a cold urine sample, and a search

of his residence revealed approximately thirty urine test kits. This suggests that

Nelson’s actual violations were more far reaching than his four positive test results,

and supports the view that a sentence higher than the guidelines suggested was

necessary to deter and incapacitate this offender.

Finally, the district court noted that Nelson had benefitted from a relatively

lenient sentence initially. Nelson was subject to a five-year mandatory minimum

sentence, but received only twenty-four months of imprisonment due to his substantial

assistance. This obviously weighed into the court’s determination of sentence at the

revocation hearing. (See Tr. of Supervised Release Hr’g at 17 (“I gave you a real

break when I sentenced you to two years’ incarceration. In retrospect, I probably

should have given you five years because I knew you were highly involved in the use

of drugs and you were really involved in the manufacture of drugs.”).) The guidelines

themselves entertain this circumstance, and provide strong support for the district

court’s sentence. USSG § 7B1.4, comment. (n.4) (“Where the original sentence was

the result of a downward departure (e.g., as a reward for substantial assistance), . . .

an upward departure may be warranted.”). Nelson’s original sentence was well below

the statutory mandate; indeed, even when combined with his current revocation

sentence, he will serve a total of forty-eight months instead of the five years the statute

required.

Appellate Case: 05-3865 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/12/2006 Entry ID: 2066571
4

Nelson also seeks to strike a letter submitted by the government in support of

its appellate position. The motion is granted; the letter is not a part of the district court

record on appeal, and we thus did not consider it in reaching our decision. Fed. R.

App. P. 10; Winthrop Res. Corp. v. Eaton Hydraulics, Inc., 361 F.3d 465, 473-74 (8th

Cir. 2004).

-5-

CONCLUSION

Nelson appeals a revocation sentence that exceeded the range recommended by

the guidelines. Because the imposition of that sentence was within the district court’s

discretion, we affirm.4

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3865 Page: 5 Date Filed: 07/12/2006 Entry ID: 2066571