1

The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-3370

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* Northern District of Iowa.

Melvin Lawrence Taylor, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 7, 2009

Filed: April 10, 2009

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges

___________

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, Melvin Taylor challenges as unreasonable the 20-

month prison term that the district court1

 imposed after revoking his supervised

release. We affirm. 

Upon careful review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not

abuse its discretion in sentencing Taylor to 20 months in prison. See United States

v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107, 1110 (8th Cir. 2008) (revocation sentence within bounds
-2-

of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) is reviewed for abuse of discretion). First, the prison term was

below the statutory maximum of 2 years, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(a)(2) (maximum

prison term for felon in possession is 10 years), 3559(a)(3) (felony is Class C if

maximum term of imprisonment is less than 25 years but 10 or more years),

3583(e)(3) (for Class C felony, maximum term of imprisonment upon revocation of

supervised release is 2 years), and the total sentence, including the supervised-release

term, did not exceed the statutory maximum of 3 years, see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(b)(2)

(maximum term of supervised release for Class C felony is 3 years), 3583(h) (length

of supervised-release term imposed upon revocation may not exceed term of

supervised release authorized for underlying offense, less any term of imprisonment

imposed upon revocation). 

Second, the sentence resulted from the court’s consideration of proper factors

under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including Taylor’s criminal history and multiple

supervised-release violations, his history of alcohol abuse, and the potential benefit

of his anticipated participation in the 500-hour treatment program. See 18 U.S.C.

§§ 3583(e) (specifying § 3553(a) factors courts must consider in revocation

sentencing decision), 3553(a)(1) (nature and circumstances of offense and history and

characteristics of defendant), 3553(a)(2)(C) (need for sentence imposed to protect

public from further crimes of defendant), 3553(a)(2)(D) (need for sentence to provide

treatment in most effective manner); United States v. Nelson, 453 F.3d 1004, 1006

(8th Cir. 2006) (appellate court reviews revocation sentence to determine whether it

is unreasonable in relation to, inter alia, advisory Guidelines range and other

applicable § 3553(a) factors). 

Finally, we conclude that the revocation sentence is not unreasonable, even

assuming it exceeded the applicable advisory Guidelines range. See Nelson, 453 F.3d

at 1005-06 (revocation sentence of 24 months in prison without further supervision

was not unreasonable despite advisory range of 4-10 months where district court

considered defendant’s commission of multiple supervised-release violations, need
-3-

for deterrence and incapacitation, and lengthy history of drug abuse making success

in inpatient treatment unlikely); United States v. Cotton, 399 F.3d 913, 914-16 (8th

Cir. 2005) (revocation sentence of 46 months in prison without further supervision

was not unreasonable despite Guidelines range of 7-13 months where court considered

defendant’s receipt of substantial reduction of original sentence, repeated violations

of supervised release, risk of new felonious conduct, and need for drug treatment best

received in prison).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment, and we grant counsel’s

motion to withdraw, subject to counsel informing appellant about procedures for

seeking rehearing or filing a petition for certiorari. 

______________________________