# 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- 12 16

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ 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.

Bran do n Dev os

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

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 8- 12 17

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ 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.

Bran do n Dev os

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

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal s fr om

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa - Ced ar Ra pi ds

__ __ __ __ __ __Su bm it te d: May 13, 2 01 9 Fi le d: Ju ne 13 , 20 19 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re COLLOTON, BEAM, and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.

Bran do n Dev os ap pe al s hi s wit hi n- Gui de li ne s- ran ge se nt en ce fo l lo win g

rev oc at io n of hi s su pe rv is ed rel eas e i n two fed eral cri m in al cas es

. Hav in g juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. § 1 29 1, we af fir m

.

Dev os pl ed gu il ty to co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e he ro in in 20 06 an d was se nt en ced
to 10 4 m on th s i m

pr is on m en t an d 3 y ears of su pe rv is ed rel eas e. He br ie fly es cap ed fro m a res id en ti al reen try ce nt er in 20 13 , l e a d i n g t o a se co nd fed eral cas e in whi ch he pl ed gu il ty to es cap in g fro m cu st od y

. I n t h i s se co nd cas e, Dev os rece iv ed a

se n t e n ce of 21 m on th s im pr is on m en t pl us 3 y ears of su pe rv is ed rel eas e. He be ga n

se rv in g h is two th ree- y ear t erm s o f su pe rv is ed rel eas e co nc ur ren tl y in 20 16

.

Fi ve m on th s la te r, Dev os ’s su pe rv is e d r e le as e was rev ok ed aft er he fai le d to
pa rti ci pa te in su bs ta nc e ab us e te st in g, us ed m et ha m ph et am in e, as so ci a te d wit h
pe rs on s en ga ge d i n c riminal act iv it y , and li ed to hi s p ro ba ti on of fic er. He rece iv ed

a se nt en ce of two co nc ur ren t 12 -m on th te rm s of im pr is on m en t fo ll owe d by two y ears of su pe rv is ed rel eas e. As a sp eci al co nd it io n of su pe rv is ed rel eas e, Dev os ’s se nt en ce in cl ud ed a m an da te d pe rio d of up to 12 0 da y s in a res id en ti al reen try cen te r. In Ju ne 20 17 , Dev os b e g a n hi s th ird te rm of su pe rv is ed rel eas e an d, at hi s req ue st , was rel eas ed to th e Cen tra l Dis tri ct of Cal ifo rn ia

. Howev er, aft er h e f a i l e d t o se cu re

res id en ti al reen try cen te r pl acemen t i n C al ifo rn ia , Dev os req ue st ed th at hi s

su pe rv is io n be tra ns ferr ed ba ck to th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of Io wa, a n d h e en te red a

res id en ti al reen try cent er i n C ed ar Ra pi ds

.
-2

-In Ja nu ary 20 18 , th e Uni te d St at es Pro ba ti on Offi ce fil ed a pe ti ti on to rev ok e

Dev os ’s su pe rv is ed rel eas e, al le gi ng th at he fai le d to co m pl y wit h res id en ti al reen try

cen te r ru le s, co m

m it te d two ne w la w vi ol at io ns , an d li ed to hi s pr ob at io n of fic er. The di st ric t co ur t he ld a rev oc at io n he ari ng

. Dev os ad m it te d or di d no t co nt es t th e

1 al le ge d vi ol at io ns , an d th e di st ric t co ur t rev ok ed hi s te rm s of su pe rv is ed rel eas e in bo th cas es

.

Dev os ’s Gui de li ne s ran ge in each cas e was 24 m on th s. He so ug ht a se nt en ce of 15 m on th s im

pr is on m en t, whi le th e go ve rn m en t so ug ht a 24 -m on th te rm of im pr is on m en t. Neit he r req ue st ed a te rm of su pe rv is ed rel eas e. The di st ric t co ur t

co ns id ered th e 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a) fact or s an d se nt en ced Dev os to co nc ur ren t

se nt en ces of 24 m on th s im pr is on m en t in each cas e wit h no su pe rv is ed rel eas e to fo ll ow. Dev os ap pe al ed , arg ui ng th at th e di st ric t co ur t im po se d a su bs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le sen te nc e.

W e rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t’s se nt en ci ng de ci si on fo ll owi ng r e v o cat io n of

su pe rv is ed rel eas e fo r an ab us e of di sc ret io n. Uni te d St at es v. W hi te , 84 0 F.3 d 55 0, 55 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 1 6 )

. A di st ric t co ur t ab us es it s di sc ret io n if it gi ve s an im pr op er fact or to o m

uc h weig h t , do es no t co ns id er a fact or th at sh ou ld ha ve be en gi ve n si gn ifi can t weig ht , or co m m it s “ a cl ear erro r of ju d g men t ” in weig hi ng th e va rio us fact or s. Id

.

The di st ric t co ur t m

us t co ns id er t he § 3 55 3( a) fact or s in m ak in g it s de ci si on , U n i t e d S t at es v. Feem st er, 57 2 F.3 d 45 5, 46 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (en ba nc ), bu t i t h a s

“ wid e la ti tu de ” to as si gn so m e of th os e fact or s gr eat er weig ht th an ot he rs

. Uni te d St at es v. Dav id , 68 2 F.3 d 10 74 , 10 77 (8 th C i r

. 20 12 ). If th e se nt en ce is wit hi n th e

The Hon or ab le Lin da R. Rea de , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Nor th ern 1 Dis tri ct of I owa

. -3

-ran ge reco m m en de d by th e Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s, we m ay pr es um e th at se nt en ce is

reas on ab le . Feem st er, 5 72 F.3d at 4 61

.

The reco m

m en de d Gui de li ne s ran ge s in Dev os ’s two cas es were 24 to 30

m on th s im

pr is on m en t an d 33 to 41 m on th s im pr is on m en t, res pe ct iv el y

. Howev er, th e st at ut or y m ax im

um se nt en ce av ai la bl e after re voc at ion of su pe rv is ed rel eas e fo r Cl as s C an d D fel on ie s is 24 m on th s im pr is on m en t. 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 83 (e)( 3)

. Thu s, th e effe ct iv e Gui de li ne s ran ge in each of Dev os ’s cas es be cam e 24 m on th s as well

. The di st r i c t c ou rt im

po se d a 24 -m on th se nt en ce, whi ch is wit hi n th e Gui de li ne s ran ge

. W e m ay th eref or e p res um e th at sen te nc e is reas on ab le

.

On ap pe al , D e v o s do es no t arg ue th at th e di st ric t co ur t rel ie d on im pr op er fact or s or th at it fai le d to co ns id er fact o r s t h a t sh ou ld ha ve rece iv ed si gn ifi can t weig ht

. Rat he r, he arg ue s so le ly th at th e di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld ha ve gi ve n m or e weig ht
to hi s de m on st rat ed ab il it y to ho ld do wn a job an d hi s la ck o f s u p e rv is ed rel eas e vi ol at io ns whi le he was i n Cal ifo rn ia

. Howev er, th e di st ric t co ur t care fu ll y

co ns id ered th es e m it ig at in g fact or s al on g wit h th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s an d ul ti m at el y

co nc lu de d a 24 -m on th se nt en ce was ap pr op ria te

. W e fin d th at su ch a de te rm in at io n

was wit hi n th e di st ric t co ur t’s “ wid e la ti tu de ,” se e Dav id , 68 2 F.3 d at 10 77 , an d th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n si m pl y by fai li ng to gi ve so m e fact or s th e weig ht Dev os wou ld ha ve pr efer red

. Bec au se we fin d n o ab us e of di sc ret io n, we

co nc lu de th at Devo s’s s en te nc e is no t s ub st an ti ve ly unr eas on ab le

.

W e aff irm th e d is tri ct co ur t’s jud gm en t.

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

-4

-