Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02917/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02917-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Eldon Lee Maldonado
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2917

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern 

* District of Missouri. 

Eldon Lee Maldonado, *

* [UNPUBLISHED] 

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 13, 2006

Filed: March 16, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. 

___________

PER CURIAM. 

In 1997 Eldon Lee Maldonado was convicted of conspiracy to possess with

intent to distribute marijuana and sentenced to 76 months imprisonment and 5 years

of supervised release. While on supervised release he pled guilty in December 2004

to a conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine and

marijuana, an offense which violated his conditions of release. At his revocation

hearing, Maldonado admitted that he had a committed a Grade A violation and was

Appellate Case: 05-2917 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/16/2006 Entry ID: 2021388
1

The Honorable Donald J. Stohr, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri. 

-2-

sentenced by the district court1

 to 15 months, to be served consecutively to the 135

month sentence for his new conviction. Maldonado appeals, arguing that his

revocation sentence is unreasonable because the district court failed to state its reasons

on the record, see 18 U.S.S.C. § 3553(c), and because it imposed a consecutive

sentence. We affirm. 

Maldonado concedes that the alleged failure of the district court to state its

reasons for the revocation sentence is reviewed only for plain error given his failure

to object at sentencing. See United States v. Franklin, 397 F.3d 604, 607 (8th Cir.

2005). Id. His revocation sentence was at the low point of the advisory guideline

range of 15 to 21 months, see U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a), and it is presumptively reasonable.

See United States v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717 (8th Cir. 2005). Furthermore, the

record demonstrates that the court gave sufficient consideration to the § 3553(a)

factors. The judge was familiar with Maldonado's history and characteristics as he

imposed both sentences, see Franklin, 397 F.3d at 607, and he found that his repeat

offense indicated that Maldonado "is not amenable to community supervision". After

determining the advisory guideline range, the court noted that a 15 month sentence

"would seem to address the sentencing objectives of punishment, general deterrence

and incapacitation." The court adequately explained the basis for its sentence. 

Maldonado also contends that the discretionary decision to impose the sentence

consecutively is "unreasonable in light of the nature and extent of his crimes." The

district court decision is supported by the Sentencing Commission's policy statement

concerning revocation of supervised release which provides that "any term of

imprisonment imposed upon the revocation of ... supervised release shall be ordered

to be served consecutively[.]" See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f). The court's exercise of its

Appellate Case: 05-2917 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/16/2006 Entry ID: 2021388
-3-

discretion to impose the sentence consecutively was not unreasonable under the

circumstances. 

Since we conclude that the sentence was not unreasonable, we affirm the

judgment of the district court. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2917 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/16/2006 Entry ID: 2021388