Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-02296/USCOURTS-ca8-07-02296-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ronald James Kies
Appellant
United States
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-2296

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Ronald James Kies, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 16, 2008

Filed: April 21, 2008

___________

Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Ronald Kies (Kies) appeals the 21-month prison sentence the district court1

imposed after revoking his supervised release. For reversal, Kies argues his sentence

is unreasonable because the court failed to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors

and gave undue consideration to the Guidelines’ policy statements recommending

consecutive sentences in revocation cases. We affirm.

Appellate Case: 07-2296 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/21/2008 Entry ID: 3425455
-2-

Upon careful review of the revocation hearing transcript, we conclude the

district court properly considered the factors set forth in section 3553(a), including the

recommended Guidelines revocation range, the lenient treatment Kies received for his

repeated past violations, the seriousness of the instant violations, and Kies’s refusal

to conform his conduct to societal norms, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1) (nature and

circumstances of offense and history and characteristics of defendant), (a)(2)(A) (need

for sentence imposed to promote respect for law), (a)(2)(C) (need for sentence

imposed to protect public from further crimes of defendant), (a)(4)(B) (applicable

Guidelines or policy statements in case of supervised release violation). Therefore,

we hold the resulting sentence is not unreasonable. See United States v. Larison, 432

F.3d 921, 924 (8th Cir. 2006) (concluding a 60-month sentence imposed upon

revocation of supervised release was not unreasonable where the court considered

repeated violations of supervised release, defendant’s inability to complete drug

treatment programs, and his continuing criminal conduct in the face of leniency from

the probation office). 

We further conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in making the

21-month sentence consecutive to Kies’s state sentence. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f)

(declaring the term of imprisonment imposed upon revocation of supervised release

shall be ordered to be served consecutively to any sentence of imprisonment defendant

is serving); United States v. Cotroneo, 89 F.3d 510, 512 (8th Cir. 1996) (stating a

decision to impose a consecutive or concurrent sentence upon revocation of

supervised release is committed to the court’s sound discretion). 

We affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-2296 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/21/2008 Entry ID: 3425455