Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01134/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01134-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
John Anthony Welch
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1134

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * District of Nebraska.

*

John Anthony Welch, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 2, 2005

Filed: December 8, 2005

___________

Before BYE, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

John Welch pleaded guilty to a firearm charge, a Class D felony, and was

sentenced to 60 months in prison and 3 years supervised release. While Welch was

serving his supervised release, the district court1

 revoked supervised release upon

Welch’s pleas of no contest and guilty to various alleged violations of his release

conditions. Noting Welch’s past behavior, his noncompliance with supervision, and

the need for mental health treatment, as well as the need to promote respect for the law

and to provide just punishment and afford deterrence, the district court sentenced

Appellate Case: 05-1134 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/08/2005 Entry ID: 1983492
-2-

Welch to 24 months in prison without further supervised release. Welch appeals,

arguing the sentence was unreasonable because it was much higher than the range

recommended under Chapter Seven of the Guidelines, and because the district court

failed to consider that range and misapplied the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 

We reject Welch’s arguments and affirm his revocation sentence. The sentence

was within statutory limits, and in fashioning Welch’s sentence the district court

explicitly considered, in open court, appropriate sentencing factors under section

3553(a). See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (district court must consider § 3553(a) factors

when deciding whether to revoke supervised release; authorizing up to 2 years

imprisonment upon revocation of supervised release where original offense is Class

D felony). As for the Chapter Seven recommended range, a violation worksheet

reflecting that range was available to the court, and Welch’s attorney discussed the

range at the revocation hearing, urging the court to impose a sentence within that

range. We will not presume that the court failed to consider the range. See United

States v. White Face, 383 F.3d 733, 740 (8th Cir. 2004) (all that is required is

evidence that court has considered relevant matters and that some reason be stated for

its decision; if sentencing judge references some considerations contained in

§ 3553(a), appellate court is ordinarily satisfied that district court was aware of entire

contents of relevant statute). Finally, we find that the revocation sentence is not

unreasonable. See United States v. Tyson, 413 F.3d 824, 825 (8th Cir. 2005) (per

curiam) (standard of review; sentence within statutory range and grounded in concerns

regarding defendant’s past behavior was not unreasonable). 

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1134 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/08/2005 Entry ID: 1983492