Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-14-03278/USCOURTS-ca8-14-03278-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Derrick Ware
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-3278

___________________________

United States of America,

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

Derrick Ware,

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant.

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids

____________

 Submitted: March 9, 2015

 Filed: July 7, 2015

[Unpublished]

____________

Before WOLLMAN, BEAM, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Derrick Ware appeals a sentence imposed by the district court after revocation

1

of Ware’s supervised release. Ware was convicted of bank fraud in 2008, and the

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

1

the Northern District of Iowa.

Appellate Case: 14-3278 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/07/2015 Entry ID: 4292308 
court sentenced him to 41 months’ imprisonment, followed by a five-year term of

supervised release. The court revoked his supervised release in 2012 for committing

a new offense of forgery while on release, and sentenced him to 18 months’

imprisonment with a three-year term of supervised release to follow. 

While on supervised release the second time, Ware committed two violations

of the conditions: he failed to appear as directed for a random urinalysis test, and he

committed the offense of theft. Ware pleaded guilty to the theft charge in state court,

a Class C felony under Iowa law, and was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 15

years’ imprisonment in the state system. He then admitted the supervised-release

violations at a revocation hearing in federal court. The most serious qualified as a

“Grade B” violation under the advisory guidelines, and Ware scored in criminal

history category V. The district court sentenced him to the statutory maximum 36

months’ imprisonment, a variance upward fromthe advisory guideline range of 18-24

months. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3); USSG § 7B1.4(a). The court also ordered that

Ware serve the federal sentence consecutive to his state sentence for theft.

Ware argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his

positive employment history and his effortsto pay court-ordered restitution. As Ware

tells it, he was generally able to earn a living while not in custody, and he had paid

approximately $10,000 of a $26,268.93 restitution judgment entered in February

2009. He argues further that because the advisory guidelines adequately account for

his significant criminal history, the district court’s variance upward fromthe advisory

range resulted in a sentence greater than necessary to achieve the aims of 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a). Finally, he contends that the sentence is excessive in light of his

undischarged state court sentence.

We review the reasonableness of a sentence under a deferential abuse-ofdiscretion standard, Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007), and we are not

convinced that there was error here. The district court gave appropriate consideration

-2-

Appellate Case: 14-3278 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/07/2015 Entry ID: 4292308 
to the § 3553(a) factors and explained its reasons for the variance. The court

observed that Ware had not been successful in “reintegrat[ing] into the community

as a law-abiding citizen,” despite the services made available to him during

supervision. The court expressed concern over his “consistent pattern of criminal

activity” involving theft and forgery, even while he enjoyed gainful employment. 

The court also noted that Ware had been on supervised release for only two months

before the arrest in this case, and that his first term of supervised release also ended

prematurely with a revocation and a new term of imprisonment. 

All of this led the court to conclude that the 18-month term imposed after the

first revocation “had little to no impact on his behavior,” and that Ware is “an

individual that has no desire to make changes and to live a law-abiding life.” We

conclude that Ware’s incorrigibility and general disrespect for the law justified the

maximum term of imprisonment after the second revocation of supervised release. 

See United States v. Growden, 663 F.3d 982, 984-85 (8th Cir. 2011). For similar

reasons grounded in the § 3553(a) factors, the court did not abuse its discretion in

ordering that Ware serve his sentence consecutive to his undischarged state sentence. 

See 18 U.S.C. § 3584(b); United States v. Poe, 764 F.3d 914, 916-17 (8th Cir. 2014).

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

-3-

Appellate Case: 14-3278 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/07/2015 Entry ID: 4292308