United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 16-3974

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Kenneth David Haag

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa - Dubuque

____________

 Submitted: October 16, 2017

 Filed: November 28, 2017

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SMITH, Chief Judge, GRUENDER and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Kenneth D. Haag pled guilty to interstate transmission, via telephone, of a

threat to injure another person in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 875(c). The district court

1

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

1

the Northern District of Iowa.
sentenced him to 33 months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised release. He

violated the conditions of release and served another 10 months. He again violated

the conditions of release. The court sentenced him to an additional 10 months and

one year of supervised release. He appeals. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §

1291, this court affirms.

Haag violated the conditions of his first term of supervised release by failing

to comply with mental-health treatment, substance-abuse testing, and probationofficer directions. The district court modified the conditions. About a year later,

Haag violated them. The court revoked his supervised release, sentencing him to 10

months’ imprisonment and two years’ supervised release with the following special

conditions: “participate in a mental health evaluation and/or treatment program,”

“take all medications prescribed to [him] by a licensed psychiatrist or physician,” and

“reside in a Residential Reentry Center for a period of up to 120 days” after release

and “abide by all [its] rules and regulations.”

Within a month of his second release, Haag violated the conditions. He failed

to comply with mental-health treatment and reentry-center rules. The center

requested his removal. The district court again revoked his supervised release,

sentencing himto 10 months’ imprisonment and one year ofsupervised release. Haag

appeals.

This court reviews “the decision to revoke supervised release for abuse of

discretion.” United States v. Frosch, 758 F.3d 1012, 1014 (8th Cir. 2014). A court

may revoke if it “finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated

a condition of supervised release.” 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). “A sentence within the

Guidelines range is accorded a presumption ofsubstantive reasonableness on appeal.” 

United States v. Petreikis, 551 F.3d 822, 824 (8th Cir. 2009).

-2-
Haag argues his sentence is “greater than necessary” for his violations. This

argument is without merit. One condition required Haag to take “all medications

prescribed” by his licensed psychiatrist or physician. The district court found, by a

preponderance, he violated this condition based on his extensive history of noncompliance:

Mr. Haag does not accept a diagnosis of schizophrenia. He always, is

my memory, having had him in court multiple times, he always

questions the diagnoses, as well as the treatment. He has consistently

refused to comply, knowing full well that that is going to result in court

action, and that hasn’t changed. This is just a continuing position by

Mr. Haag. I understand that people who take certain medications for

mental illness don’t like the side effects. I appreciate that. But if the

choice is living in the community and not being a danger or enduring

some of the side effects or working with a psychiatrist to get the dosage

level such that the side effects are minimized, it seems to me that Mr.

Haag is fully capable of making the latter decision, but he chooses

instead to just fight the thing continually.

Another condition required Haag to follow the rules of the reentry center. 

Noting “a pattern” of “threatening behavior,” the district court found a violation by

a preponderance of the evidence. Breaking “rules ofthe reentry center” may “warrant

the revocation of a supervised release,” if a defendant’s actions indicate “pervasive

unwillingness to comply with court orders and the orders of a reentry center.” See

United States v. Melton, 666 F.3d 513, 515-16 (8th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation

marks omitted). See also United States v. Burkhalter, 588 F.2d 604, 607 (8th Cir.

1978) (upholding probation revocation where the defendant’s “violations are not

particularly serious in terms of their danger to society,” but “his behavior indicates

a pervasive unwillingness to follow the rehabilitation program” and an “inability to

accept responsibility and to live within the rules of his probation”). Revocation is

“within the sound discretion of the district court.” Melton, 666 F.3d at 517. 

-3-
Haag also believes the district court failed to consider his preferred treatment

options or other “kinds of sentences available.” The district court considered

alternative placements, including Haag’s proposed Penn Center placement:

And the other problem is, because of his behavior, he has been removed

from the residential reentry center. He needs supervision. I don’t have

anyplace to put him. He’s a threatening person. That’s been his history

with this Court since I met up with him when I sentenced him in 2013.

. . . .

When somebody is in a residential reentry center and they don’t obey

the rules and they get kicked out and the Court thinks that supervision

is necessary to reorient someone to the community, it doesn’t leave me

many options.

. . . .

I have no place to put him in the community that would assure the safety

of the community. I know absolutely nothing about the Penn Center. 

It’s pure speculation that they have facilities for him, that the facilities

would be appropriate for him. It certainly would not be a controlled

environment like you have in a community corrections center or in the

Bureau of Prisons.

Imposing a within-guideline sentence,the district court thoroughly considered Haag’s

mental health, history of non-compliance, and “each and every factor under 18 United

States Code Section 3553(a) that apply in a revocation proceeding.” The court did

not abuse its discretion in revoking Haag’s supervised release and sentencing him to

10 months. 

* * * * * * *

The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

-4-