Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-14-03703/USCOURTS-ca8-14-03703-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Wayne Houle
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-3703

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

David Wayne Houle

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids

____________

 Submitted: December 14, 2015

 Filed: January 22, 2016

[Unpublished]

____________

Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

After finding that David Wayne Houle had violated certain conditions of

supervised release, the district court sentenced him to eight months’ imprisonment

1

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

1

the Northern District of Iowa.

Appellate Case: 14-3703 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/22/2016 Entry ID: 4358636 
and reinstated a term of supervised release. Houle appeals, arguing that the district

court abused its discretion in ordering further supervised release. We affirm.

In 1997, Houle was adjudicated delinquent for criminal sexual conduct in the

second degree, in violation of Michigan law. Houle was fourteen years old at the

time, and his offense conduct involved rubbing the vaginal area of a five-year-old

family member. In 2004, Houle was convicted ofsexual intercourse with a child, age

sixteen or older, in violation of Wisconsin law. Houle was required to register as a

sex offender based on those convictions. 

Houle pleaded guilty to failing to register as a sex offender, in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 2250(a), and was sentenced to twenty-four months’ imprisonment in June

2009. The district court also imposed a fifteen-year term of supervised release. 

Houle was released from prison in October 2010 and thereafter commenced his

original term of supervised release. From that date until the instant revocation

proceedings, Houle’s supervised release had been revoked three times. After each

revocation, the district court sentenced Houle to a term of imprisonment and

reinstated the original term of supervised release, which carried a discharge date of

October 14, 2025. 

On September 26, 2014, Houle was released from prison after serving a third

term of imprisonment for violating the conditions of his release. A month later,

another petition for revocation wasfiled, alleging that Houle had committed a number

of violations, including the following: (1) failing to comply with residential reentry

center rules, (2) frequenting places where children congregate, (3) failing to follow

instructions or truthfully answer inquiries, (4) failing to allow computer and/or

electronic storage device search, and (5) possessing pornography. Houle admitted

most of the violations, but he denied that he was in possession of a cell phone and

two pornographic magazines that were discovered in his storage unit at the reentry

center. The cell phone contained an image of a partially clothed woman and a second

-2-

Appellate Case: 14-3703 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/22/2016 Entry ID: 4358636 
image of the same woman exposing her breasts and pubic area. After conducting a

hearing, the district court found that Houle had knowingly possessed the cell phone

and magazines. 

Houle’s supervised release was again revoked. The district court sentenced

him to eight months’ imprisonment and ordered that “supervised release [be]

reimposed to the original discharge date of October 14, 2025.” On appeal, Houle

argues that the district court erred when it imposed a term of supervised release to

follow his term of imprisonment. 

We find no abuse of discretion in the imposition of a termofsupervised release

in this case. See United States v. Defoor, 535 F.3d 763, 764-65 (8th Cir. 2008)

(standard of review). The district court considered Houle’s argument that he would

have greater success in society if he were no longer subject to supervision. It also

considered the fact that Houle had served more time for supervised release violations

than he had for failing to register. The district court decided, however, that it was

“not going to reward [Houle’s] bad behavior by taking him off supervision,” noting

that Houle “has the ability to conform his behavior to the rules but chooses not to.” 

The district court also rejected the argument that Houle should be released from

supervision because his violations stemmed, for the most part, from legal conduct. 

The district court ultimately determined that because Houle remained “a danger to the

community, [it was] unwilling to release him from supervision,” a decision that we

conclude did not constitute an abuse of discretion. 

The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

-3-

Appellate Case: 14-3703 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/22/2016 Entry ID: 4358636