Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02275/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02275-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ronald R. Haukaas III
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

*

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

District of South Dakota. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2275

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District

v. * of South Dakota.

*

Ronald R. Haukaas, III, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 10, 2005

Filed: January 18, 2005

___________

Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

After Ronald R. Haukaas III admitted he violated his supervised release, the

district court*

 revoked his release and sentenced him to twenty-four months in prison

followed by no supervised release, the maximum allowed under 18 U.S.C. §

3583(e)(3), but more than the advised sentence of four to ten months in U.S.S.G. §

7B1.4(a)’s policy statement. On appeal, his counsel has moved to withdraw and filed

a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting the district court

Appellate Case: 04-2275 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/18/2005 Entry ID: 1856055 
-2-

abused its discretion in exceeding the recommended Guidelines range. Haukaas has

not filed a pro se supplemental brief. 

Although the policy statements in chapter 7 of the Guidelines are merely

advisory, 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supervised release has been revoked.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). According to 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 “‘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 acknowledged the advised Guidelines range of four to

ten months and correctly observed the advised range was not binding on the court.

After stating it had considered all the factors set out in 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553 and 3583,

the district court found Haukass was not a suitable person for continued supervision.

The district court noted Haukaas’s denial of a substance abuse problem, minimal

progress in treatment programs, and the probation office’s view that Haukaas was so

negative and lacking in acceptance of responsibility that it did not want to spend any

more effort supervising him. Under the circumstances, we conclude the sentence

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

Hawkins, 375 F.3d at 753. 

We have reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75 (1988), and found no nonfrivolous issues. We thus affirm, and grant counsel’s

motion to withdraw. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2275 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/18/2005 Entry ID: 1856055