Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03812/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03812-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Wade Duane Arvidson
Appellant
United States of America
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. 09-3812

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the 

Wade Duane Arvidson, also known * District of Minnesota.

as Michael Duane Damron, also *

known as Michael Ray Buringrud, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 14, 2010

Filed: July 16, 2010

___________

Before LOKEN, ARNOLD, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Wade Arvidson appeals from the sentence of 24 months' imprisonment that the

district court1

 imposed after revoking his supervised release. Mr. Arvidson had been

sentenced to 30 months' imprisonment for a firearms violation, see 18 U.S.C.

§ 922(g), which he served concurrently with a longer sentence for a state-law crime.

After his release, while he was on supervision, he was convicted of theft in a state

court resulting in a sentence of 60 months' imprisonment. It was that theft conviction

Appellate Case: 09-3812 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/16/2010 Entry ID: 3684266
-2-

that served as the grounds for the revocation involved here, and the district court

imposed its sentence to run consecutively to the sentence for that conviction.

At the revocation hearing, the district court was mindful of its duty to fix a

sentence in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), which requires consideration of any

applicable policy statements that the United States Sentencing Commission has issued,

see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(4)(B), in imposing a sentence for a violation of supervised

release. The district court correctly concluded that the policy statements provided for

an advisory range of 21 to 27 months' imprisonment in the circumstances of

Mr. Arvidson's case, see U.S.S.G. §§ 7B1.1-7B1.5, and chose a sentence squarely in

the middle of that range.

Mr. Arvidson maintains that the sentence is unreasonable because the district

court did not give proper weight to the fact that the defendant did not think that he

should be under federal supervision after his release on the first state-law crime, or to

the fact that he had already served 40 months in state custody for the theft charge that

provided the basis for the revocation. Our examination of the record, however,

reveals that the district court heard argument on these matters at the revocation

hearing and it considered them and all the factors that the statutes require in choosing

a sentence. Because the sentence is within the range that the policy statements

recommend, it is presumptively reasonable. See United States v. Perkins, 526 F.3d

1107, 1110 (8th Cir. 2008). And we have detected nothing in the record that could

serve to undermine the presumption.

Mr. Arvidson also contends that the district court should have made the

sentence that it imposed run concurrently nunc pro tunc with the state sentence for

theft, but cites no authority that would require the court to do so. And in fact U.S.S.G.

§ 7B1.3(f) states that this kind of sentence "shall be ordered to be served

consecutively to any sentence that the defendant is serving."

Affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-3812 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/16/2010 Entry ID: 3684266