Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03308/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03308-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Vincent A. Caulfield
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-3308

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Vincent A. Caulfield, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 8, 2010

Filed: June 9, 2010

___________

Before SMITH, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Vincent A. Caulfield, challenges the 24-month sentence imposed by

the district court1

 upon revocation of Caulfield’s term of supervised release. In 2004

Caulfield was convicted of the unlawful transportation of firearms, see 18 U.S.C.

§ 922(g)(1), and he was sentenced to 51 months imprisonment and three years of

supervised release. Two months after commencement of Caulfield’s supervised

release, the United States filed a petition seeking revocation of Caulfield’s supervised

1

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

District of Nebraska.

Appellate Case: 09-3308 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/09/2010 Entry ID: 3672598
release, alleging the following violations: (1) failure to report for drug testing; (2)

failure to report to the probation office; (3) failure to obtain employment; (4) testing

positive for methamphetamine; and (5) failure to obtain an evaluation and participate

in alcohol and drug abuse treatment. Caulfield admitted the violations and his

supervised release was revoked in September 2009. The district court found that

Caulfield’s advisory Guidelines sentencing range was 8-14 months. However, the

district court followed the recommendation of the probation officer and sentenced

Caulfield to 24 months imprisonment, with no term of supervised release to follow.2

In this appeal, Caulfield challenges his sentence, contending that the district court

procedurally erred in failing to set forth any reasons for the upward variance. We

affirm.

“We review a district court’s revocation sentencing decisions using the same

standards that we apply to initial sentencing decisions.” United States v. Miller, 557

F.3d 910, 915-16 (8th Cir. 2009). “A sentence is procedurally unreasonable if the

district court, inter alia, ‘fail[ed] to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors, . . . or

fail[ed] to adequately explain the chosen sentence.’” United States v. Perkins, 526

F.3d 1107, 1110 (8th Cir. 2008) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 516 F.3d 716,

717 (8th Cir. 2008)). The § 3553(a) factors which are relevant to a sentence imposed

upon revocation of supervised release are listed under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). United

States v. Franklin, 397 F.3d 604, 606 n.3 (8th Cir. 2005). “A district court is not

required to make specific findings; all that is generally required to satisfy the appellate

court is evidence that the district court was aware of the relevant factors.” Perkins,

2

In December 2008, an indictment was returned in the district court charging

Caulfield with being a felon in possession of a firearm. Caulfield entered a plea of

guilty to the new charge and sentencing on that charge was combined with sentencing

in the revocation case in a single hearing. Caulfield was sentenced on the firearm

conviction to a term of 57 months imprisonment to run consecutively to the revocation

sentence.

-2-

Appellate Case: 09-3308 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/09/2010 Entry ID: 3672598
526 F.3d at 1110. Where the sentencing court varies from the advisory Guidelines

range, we give “due deference to the district court’s decision that the § 3553(a)

factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the variance.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.

38, 51 (2007).

Normally, we review a claim of procedural error in sentencing under a

deferential abuse of discretion standard. See United States v. Merrival, 521 F.3d 889,

890 (8th Cir. 2008). Here, however, Caulfield failed to object to the alleged failure

of the district court to adequately explain the reasons for the upward variance,

therefore we review for plain error. Miller, 557 F.3d at 916. Plain error is error that

is plain and affects the appellant’s substantial rights. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S.

725, 732 (1993). “We will exercise our discretion to correct such an error only if the

error ‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial

proceedings.’” Miller, 557 F.3d at 916 (quoting Olano, 507 U.S. at 732). Applying

this standard, we find that the district court explained that, while on supervised

release, Caulfield not only committed the five violations giving rise to the revocation

petition but also committed another serious crime—being a felon in possession of a

firearm. We also note that the district judge who imposed the sentence now under

review also imposed Caulfield’s initial sentence. We conclude that the district court’s

explanation was adequate, that the court did not commit error—plain or otherwise—in

varying above the advisory Guidelines range by ten months, and that “the § 3553(a)

factors, on a whole, justif[ied] the extent of the variance.” See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

___________________________

-3-

Appellate Case: 09-3308 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/09/2010 Entry ID: 3672598