Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01537/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01537-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kevin Merrival
Appellant
United States
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Richard H. Battey, United States District Judge for the District

of South Dakota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-1537

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* District of South Dakota. 

Kevin Merrival, *

*

Appellant. * 

___________

Submitted: December 12, 2007

Filed: April 4, 2008

___________

Before RILEY, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

COLLOTON, Circuit Judge.

After Kevin Merrival violated the terms of his supervised release, the district

court1

 sentenced him to 24 months’ imprisonment with no further term of supervised

release. Merrival argues that the district court failed to examine factors supporting

leniency under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and imposed a term of imprisonment that is

substantively unreasonable. We hold that the district court’s sentence was not an

abuse of discretion, and we therefore affirm.

Appellate Case: 07-1537 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/04/2008 Entry ID: 3420393
-2-

On September 10, 2001, Kevin Merrival pled guilty to one count of distributing

cocaine. The district court sentenced him to 18 months’ imprisonment, followed by

72 months’ supervised release. Merrival completed the term of imprisonment on

January 8, 2003, but violated a condition of his supervised release by using drugs and

alcohol. On August 17, 2004, after a revocation proceeding, the district court

sentenced him to 11 months’ imprisonment followed by 60 more months’ supervised

release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h). Merrival completed this second term of

imprisonment and commenced supervised release again on June 23, 2005.

In October 2005, Merrival was arrested for driving under the influence of

alcohol, and in December 2006, he tested positive for cocaine. Merrival’s probation

officer warned him each time, but no action was taken to revoke his release. On

January 22, 2007, a Rapid City police detective called Merrival’s probation officer to

report that he was a suspect in a major shoplifting ring. The probation office

instructed Merrival to report to City/County Alcohol and Drug Program (Detox) until

an investigation could be completed. At Detox, when directed to provide a urine

sample for a drug test, Merrival tried to substitute his son’s urine for his own.

Merrival’s own sample later tested positive for cocaine. Based on Merrival’s cocaine

use, the government petitioned to revoke his second term of supervised release. The

district court granted the government’s petition, and sentenced Merrival to 24 months’

imprisonment, the maximum sentence permitted under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). The

court declined to order additional supervised release.

A district court must begin the sentencing procedure by calculating the

applicable guidelines range. Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 596 (2007). The

court should then “consider all of the § 3553(a) factors to determine whether they

support the sentence requested by a party.” Id. A district court also must “adequately

explain the chosen sentence to allow for meaningful appellate review and to promote

the perception of fair sentencing.” Id. at 597.

Appellate Case: 07-1537 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/04/2008 Entry ID: 3420393
-3-

On appeal, we may consider both the procedural soundness of the district

court’s decision and the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed. We

review a revocation sentence under the same “reasonableness” standard that applies

to initial sentencing proceedings, United States v. Cotton, 399 F.3d 913, 916 (8th Cir.

2005), and in accordance with Gall, we review the substantive reasonableness of the

sentence under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. 128 S. Ct. at 597. 

Merrival argues that the district court abused its discretion by failing to consider

his good work ethic, his financial responsibility to his family, and the fact that his

recidivism was influenced by severe drug addiction. We disagree. The district court

began by correctly calculating the advisory guideline range of 5 to 11 months’

imprisonment. See USSG § 7B1.4(a). The court then noted that it had reviewed

Merrival’s original presentence report and his previous opportunities to complete

supervised release. Merrival and the government both explained that the defendant

had been employed throughout his adult life, and that he was financially responsible

for “quite a few children.” The district court plainly heard those statements, but

nonetheless concluded that a further term of supervised release was inadequate to

deter or rehabilitate Merrival. The court remarked that it had given Merrival “repeated

chances,” but that he could not “seem to get away from alcohol or drugs,” and that

additional supervised release would be “simply a waste of time.” Accordingly, the

court imposed a term of 24 months’ imprisonment, with no additional supervised

release to follow.

We conclude that the district court provided an adequate explanation of the

sentence imposed, and that the sentence is not substantively unreasonable. Given

Merrival’s recidivism, the ineffectiveness of prior efforts at rehabilitation, and

Merrival’s recent attempt to provide a false urine sample for a drug test, it was not an

abuse of discretion to conclude that further supervised release would be fruitless. The

term of imprisonment imposed was greater than that recommended by the advisory

guidelines, but the court also refrained from requiring Merrival to serve an additional

Appellate Case: 07-1537 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/04/2008 Entry ID: 3420393
-4-

term of supervised release. Particularly given the impermissibility of proportionality

review after Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 596, we cannot say that it was unreasonable under

these circumstances for the district court to impose a term of 24 months’

imprisonment without additional supervision to follow.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-1537 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/04/2008 Entry ID: 3420393