# United States Court of Appeals **For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________ No. 14-1964

___________________________ United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v. Ryan I. Willis
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City

____________ Submitted: November 11, 2014 Filed: November 20, 2014 [Unpublished]

____________ Before BYE, SHEPHERD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM.

The district court 1 sentenced Ryan I. Willis to 24 months imprisonment, with no term of supervised release to follow, afte r Willis’s term of supervised release was

1 The Honorable David Gregory Kays, Chie f Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.revoked for the second time. Willis app eals. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and following careful consideration, we affirm.
Willis pled guilty to possessing with intent to distribute five grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) (2006) (amended 2010). Willis violated the conditions of his pretrial release twice before entering this plea agreement. Both violations involved controlled substances. Willis was sentenced to 38 months imprisonment, with 5 years superv ised release to follow. Willis served his prison sentence but thereafter violated the conditions of his supervised release by, among other things, using controlled substances. As a result, the district court entered a revocation sentence of time served, with two years supervised release to follow. While Willis was serving this term of supe rvised release, a violation report and a supplemental violation report were filed with the district c ourt. These reports alleged Willis failed to successfully complete a Salvation Army substance abuse treatment program, failed to report his discharge from the program to his probation officer, and submitted a positive drug test. The reports prompted the district court to hold a revocation hearing. Willis stipulated at this hearing that he violated the conditions of his supervised release as alleged and thatthe Government could prove each alleged violation. The district court accordingly found Willis violated five special, mandatory, and standard conditions of his supervised release.
At the hearing, Willis’s probation officer recommended 18 months imprisonment, with 12 months supervis ed release to follow. The Government concurred in this recommendation. The district court determined a Guidelines range of three to nine months imprisonment. See United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual , §7B1.4, p.s. Willis urged the district court to follow the Guidelines range. He stressed that he committed only Grade C violations and was in criminal history Category I. He argued he had no negative law enforcement contact during his second term of supervised releas e. He also admitted his substance abuse

-2-problem to the district court and statedhis treatment program had gone well until he had “fallen off the edge.”
The district court acknowledged Willis’s substance abuse problem. The district court remarked on Willis’s criminal history, discussed particular charges, and noted it “[saw] [in Willis] a lot of entanglements w ith law enforcement.” The district court commented that Willis twice violated pretri al release and twice violated supervised release. It recognized the ro le illegal drug use played in th ese violations. The district court stated it “considered all the factors” in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The district court highlighted its consideration of the nature and characteristics of Willis’s crime, Willis’s violations, and Willis’s history and characteristics. It noted the need for deterrence and the need to protect the public . It also credited Willis’s honesty. With these factors in mind, the district court sentenced Willis to 24 months imprisonment, with no term of supervised release to follow. The district court explained that its upward variance was “based upon this analysis under [section] 3553(a)” and that it “has taken into consideration the Chap ter 7 policy statements and believes the sentence above this revocation guideline range is appropriate pursuant” to the section 3553(a) factors.

Willis now contends the district court’ s sentence “was greater than necessary and substantively unreasonable based upon the facts and circumstances present.” Because Willis does not argue the district c ourt committed procedural error, we “move directly to review the substantive reasonableness of his sentence.” United States v. Franik , 687 F.3d 988, 990 (8th Cir. 2012) (int ernal quotation marks omitted). We review the substantive reasonableness of a district court’s revocation sentence under a deferential abuse-of-discretion st andard. United States v. Merrival , 521 F.3d 889, 890 (8th Cir. 2008); see also United States v. Feemster , 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (describing abuse-of-discre tion review). “In c onducting this review, we are to take into account the totality of the circumstances . . . .” Feemster , 572 F.3d at 461 (internal quotation marks omitted).

-3-Here, the district court acknowledge d the Guidelines range, stated it “considered all the factors” 2 in section 3553(a), and speci fically addressed several of these factors. Taking all this into account , the district court found an upward variance justified. We are satisfied on review of th e record the district court did not abuse its discretion and did not impose a substantiv ely unreasonable revocation sentence. We therefore affirm.

______________________________

2 Section 3583(e), which governs a districtcourt’s revocation of a term of supervised release, lists only certain of th e section 3553(a) factors for consideration. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). We recently noted “the circuits are split whether sentencing under [section] 3583 permits consideration of the factors in [section] 3553(a)(2)(A).” United States v. Martin , 757 F.3d 776, 780 n.2 (8th Cir. 2014) (citing United States v. Clay , 752 F.3d 1106, 1108-09 (7th Cir. 2014 )). We express no opinion on this issue here. -4-