Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01901/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01901-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Darrell Humphrey
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

*

The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the

District of Nebraska. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1901

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District

v. * of Nebraska.

*

Darrell Humphrey, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 10, 2005

Filed: January 19, 2005

___________

Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

During his supervised release, Darrell Humphrey entered but failed to complete

a short-term residential chemical dependency program. Humphrey used cocaine,

which violated the terms of his supervised release. The district court*

 revoked

Humphrey’s supervised release and ordered Humphrey to enter and participate in a

community confinement program with work release for a period of 120 days or until

discharged by the United States Probation Office (USPO). Humphrey did not

complete the program and he was not discharged by the USPO. Humphrey later

Appellate Case: 04-1901 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/19/2005 Entry ID: 1856606 
-2-

appeared before the district court and admitted his inability to control his addiction.

Humphrey also said he had been in and out of eleven different penitentiaries over the

past eighteen years, and prison was the only way he knew to “get clean.” The district

court sentenced Humphrey to twenty-four months in prison with no following

supervised release. The court recommended that Humphrey be allowed to participate

in a chemical dependency program in prison. Although the twenty-four month

sentence is permitted by 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), the sentence exceeds the four to ten

month sentence recommended in U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a)’s policy statement. On appeal,

Humphrey contends the sentence is excessive and the district court had no reason to

impose a sentence greater than the sentence advised by the Guidelines. 

The policy statements in chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines are merely

advisory, but district courts must consider them when sentencing a defendant whose

supervised release has been revoked. United States v. Hawkins, 375 F.3d 750, 751-

52 (8th Cir. 2004). Under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), the court must also consider

sentencing factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Id. at 752. The district court may

impose a sentence exceeding the range advised by chapter 7 of the Guidelines

“‘when, in its considered discretion, such a departure is warranted.’” Id. at 753

(quoting United States v. Carr, 66 F.3d 981, 983 (8th Cir. 1995) (per curiam)).

Here, the district court initially gave Humphrey a chance for drug rehabilitation

outside the prison environment, but Humphrey failed to complete the substance abuse

program. At sentencing, the court stated it had considered the factors in § 3553 and

the presentence report, which set forth the recommended Guidelines sentence. The

court noted Humphrey’s multiple violations and multiple failed opportunities to

engage in rehabilitation programs. Under these circumstances, the twenty-four month

sentence was a carefully considered exercise of the district court’s discretion. We

thus affirm Humphrey’s sentence. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1901 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/19/2005 Entry ID: 1856606