Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-14-03766/USCOURTS-ca8-14-03766-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kelley Dull
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-3766

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Kelley Dull

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City

____________

 Submitted: November 16, 2015

 Filed: April 14, 2016

[Unpublished]

____________

Before COLLOTON, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

The district court1

 sentenced Kelley Dull to 12 months’ imprisonment, with no

term of supervised release to follow, after Dull violated the conditions of her

1

The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

Appellate Case: 14-3766 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/14/2016 Entry ID: 4388263 
supervised release. Dull argues that the district court abused its discretion by

considering factors from 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A), which are not listed as factors for

the district court to consider in post-revocation sentencing under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). 

Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

Dull pled guilty to wire fraud, and the district court sentenced her to six

months’ imprisonment and three years of supervised release. On July 12, 2013, Dull

began her term of supervision. On September 24, 2014, the United States Probation

Office filed a violation report alleging that Dull had failed to pay restitution and had

unlawfully used a controlled substance and alcohol. Dull stipulated to the three

violations of her supervised release. The district court requested recommendations

from the parties. The government requested a sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment,

and Dull requested that the court either continue her supervised release or impose a

sentence at the lower end of the United States Sentencing Commission’s Chapter 7

policy guideline range of three to nine months. After hearing arguments from both

parties, the district court sentenced Dull to 12 months’ imprisonment with no

supervised release to follow.

Dull did not challenge the district court’s consideration of § 3553(a)(2)(A), yet

she argues that our standard of review should be de novo because we are confronted

with a question of law, specifically whether the district court misapplied the guidelines

by considering § 3553(a)(2)(A) factors, which are not listed in § 3583(e).

Generally, we review a revocation sentence under the same “deferential abuse-ofdiscretion” standard that we apply to initial sentencing proceedings, evaluating both

the substantive reasonableness of the sentence and procedural soundness of the district

court’s decision. United States v. Young, 640 F.3d 846, 848 (8th Cir. 2011) (per

curiam). An error of law is an abuse of discretion. United States v. Fonder, 719 F.3d

960, 961 (8th Cir. 2013). However, where the defendant fails to raise procedural

objections at sentencing, we review a claim of procedural error for plain error only. 

United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 916 (8th Cir. 2009).

-2-

Appellate Case: 14-3766 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/14/2016 Entry ID: 4388263 
“To establish plain error, [Dull] must prove that (1) there was error, (2) the error

was plain, and (3) the error affected [her] substantial rights.” Id. (citing United States

v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993)). We will exercise our discretion to correct an

unpreserved procedural error only if the error “seriously affect[s] the fairness,

integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Olano, 507 U.S. at 732

(quoting United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15 (1985)). “An error affects a

substantial right if the error was prejudicial.” Miller, 557 F.3d at 916 (citing Olano,

507 U.S. at 734). An error is prejudicial where there is “a reasonable probability that

the defendant would have received a lighter sentence but for the error.” Id. (citing

United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 552 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc)). 

Dull contends that the district court erred by mentioning § 3553(a)(2)(A) factors

– the seriousness of the violation, the need to promote respect for the law, and the

need to provide just punishment for the offense – in its rationale for the sentence. 

Although § 3583(e) omits these factors, consideration of the factors is not explicitly

prohibited. We acknowledge that there is a circuit split as to whether post-revocation

sentencing under § 3583(e) permits consideration of the factors in § 3553(a)(2)(A). 

See United States v. Clay, 752 F.3d 1106, 1108-09 (7th Cir. 2014) (discussing the

circuit split). Nevertheless, this court need not address the split in this case because,

unlike other circuits, we have never held that a district court’s consideration of

§ 3553(a)(2)(A) factors when sentencing under § 3583(e) is a procedural error. Thus,

even assuming it was error, the error is not plain.

Furthermore, the district court’s reference to these factors is inconsequential

because the district court imposed Dull’s sentence after evaluating her conduct under

several § 3553(a) factors that § 3583(e) specifically enumerates. In particular, the

court considered the nature and circumstances of Dull’s offense; Dull’s history and

characteristics; the need for her sentence to afford adequate deterrence and protect the

public from future crimes; and that efforts to provide treatment to her while on

supervised release have not been successful or made an impact. See § 3553(a)(1);

-3-

Appellate Case: 14-3766 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/14/2016 Entry ID: 4388263 
§ 3553(a)(2)(B)-(D); see also § 3583(e) (listing § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B),(a)(2)(C), and

(a)(2)(D) as factors that a court is to consider in post-revocation sentencing). 

 

Moreover, the district court’s reference to the seriousness of the violation, as

well as the need to promote respect for the law and provide just punishment for the

offense, did not affect Dull’s substantial rights. These § 3553(a)(2)(A) factors did not

predominate the court’s analysis, and the court sufficiently considered the permissible

§ 3553(a) factors when imposing Dull’s sentence. Dull has not satisfied her burden

to show that if the district court had not referenced the § 3553(a)(2)(A) factors, there

is a reasonable probability that Dull would have received a more favorable sentence. 

See United States v. Means, 365 F. App’x. 720, 723 (8th Cir. 2010) (unpublished per

curiam) (citing Pirani, 406 F.3d at 553). 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________

-4-

Appellate Case: 14-3766 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/14/2016 Entry ID: 4388263