# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 8- 11 96

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

St ev ie W il li am s, al so kn own as M is si ss ip pi

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of Ne br as ka - Lin co ln

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Jan ua ry

14 , 20 19 Fi le d: Marc h 1 2, 2 01 9 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re BENTON, MELLOY, an d KELLY, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __
PER CURI AM.

St ev ie W il li am s pl ed gu il ty to co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e co cai ne in vi ol at io n of
21 U.S.C. § 84 6. The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced hi m to 12 0 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. It 1

The Hon or ab le Ri ch ard G. Kop f, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1 of Nebr as ka

.la te r red uc ed hi s s en te nc e b y 72 m on th s. Afte r rel eas e fro m pr is on , he v io la te d t he

co nd it io ns of hi s su pe rv is ed rel eas e. The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced hi m to 18 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t an d 12 m on th s’ su pe rv is ed rel eas e. Less th an two m on th s aft er rel eas e, he ag ai n vi ol at ed th e co nd it io ns of re l e a s e

. The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced hi m to 36

m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t. He ap pe al s. Hav in g juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. § 12 91
, th is

co ur t af fir m s.

W il li am s be li ev es hi s ab ov e gu id el in es se nt en ce (g ui de li ne s ran ge w a s 7- 13

m on th s) is su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le

. Thi s co ur t rev ie ws th e su bs ta nt iv e

reas on ab le ne ss of a se nt en ce fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n. Uni te d St at es v. Bera n , 75 1 F.3 d
87 2, 87 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ). An ab us e of di sc ret io n oc cu rs if th e di st ric t co ur t “ fai ls to

c on si de r a rel ev an t fact or th at sh ou ld ha ve rece iv ed si gn ifi can t weig ht
, g i v e s si gn ifi can t weig ht to an im pr op er or irr el ev an t fac t o r , o r c on si de rs on ly th e
ap pr op ria te fact or s bu t co m m it s a cl ear erro r of jud gm en t in weig hi ng th os e fact or s.”
Uni te d St at es v. Ceb al lo s- Sa nt a Cr uz , 75 6 F.3 d 63 5, 63 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ). Thi s co ur t gi ve s di st r i c t c o u rts “ wid e la ti tu de to weig h th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s in each cas e an d

as si gn so m e fact or s g r e at er weig ht th an ot he rs in de te rm in in g an ap pr op ria te

se nt en ce.” Uni te d S ta te s v. Mi sq ua da ce , 77 8 F .3d 71 7, 7 19 (8t h C ir. 2 01 5)

.

W il li am s ad m it te d vi ol at in g th e co nd it io ns of hi s rel eas e by co m m it ti ng th ird

de gr ee do m es ti c as sa ul t ag ai ns t an in ti m at e pa rtn er. Ho w e v e r , he arg ue s th e co ur t

erre d in se nt en ci ng hi m ab ov e th e gu id el in es be cau se it “ sh ou ld ha ve reco gn iz ed th at

a di sm is sa l of th e ch arg e in st at e co ur t m it ig at ed ag ai ns t a le ng th y se nt en ce in fed eral

co ur t.” Thi s arg um en t is un av ai li ng

. The di st ric t co ur t was fam il ia r wit h W il li am s; it pr es id ed ov er hi s in it ia l se nt en ci ng an d fir st rev oc at io n. Im po si ng th e se nt en ce, it

co ns id ered th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s, th e ph ot og rap hi c ev id en ce of th e vi ct im ’s in juri es ,
a reco rd in g of th e vi ct im ’s acco un t of th e as sa ul t, W il li am s’ “ rep eat ed vi ol at io ns ” of

co nd it i o n s of rel eas e, hi s cri m in al hi st or y (wh ic h in cl ud ed dr ug ch arg es , se xu al

as sa ul t, an d vi ol at io n of a do m es ti c ab us e pr ot ect io n or de r), an d th e fact th at he was

“ pr ev io us ly a be ne fic ia ry of a do wnwar d de pa rtu re or o t h e r un us ua l fo rm of

-2

-le ni en cy .” The di st ric t co ur t fu ll y co ns id ered th e reco rd an d al lo wed W il li am s to

sp eak be fo re im

po si ng it s se nt en ce. It di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n. Se e Uni te d St at es

v. Kr ei ti ng er , 57 6 F.3 d 50 0, 50 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (co ll ect in g cas es whe re th i s co ur t

se nt en ced de fen da nt s ou ts id e th e gu id el in es fo r reas on s su ch as “ nu m ero us an d
rep eat ed vi ol at io ns o f th e te rm s of ” su pe rv is ed rel eas e an d pe rs is te nt cri m in al

co nd uc t).

* * * * * * *

The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-3

-