# 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- 25 57

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

Pla in ti ff - App el le e

v.

Ja m es Nels on
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

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Decem

be r 10 , 20 18 Fi le d: Jan ua ry

16 , 20 19 [Un pu bl is he d]

Befo re LOKEN, MELLOY , and ERICKSON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

In Octo be r 20 12
, Ja m es Nels on was co nv ic te d fo r fai li ng to reg is te r as a se x of fen de r, in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 22 50 (a). He was se nt en ced to 24 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t to be fo ll owe d by a fiv e-year te rm of su pe rv is ed rel eas e

. N e l s on

en te re d i n t o s u p erv is io n in Mar ch 20 15

. In Octo be r 20 16
, a pe ti ti on se ek in g th e

rev oc at io n of Nels o n ’s su pe rv is ed rel eas ed was fil ed
, ci ti ng va rio us vi ol at io nsin cl ud in g: m ul ti pl e fai lu res to rep or t to hi s pr ob at io n of fic er, fai lu re to pa rti ci pa te in

an y su bs ta nc e ab us e tre a tm en t pr og ram s, se ve ral m is se d an d fai le d ur in al y se s, an d fai lu re t o re gi st er h is ne w add res s af te r be in g e vi ct ed

.

The di st ric t co ur t fo un d th at Nels on ha d co mm i t t ed a gr ad e B vi ol at io n an d 1

was in cri m in al hi st or y cat eg or y V, whi ch y ie ld ed an ad vi so r y g u i de li ne s ran ge of
18 –2 4 m on th s. Nel so n req ue st ed a co nt in ua nc e o f th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng cla im in g th at rece nt ci rcu m st an ti al ch an ge s, su ch as acce ss to st ab le ho us in g a nd he al th care
g r e a tl y ch an ge d th e fo ot in g of th e cas e. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e m o t i o n f o r a

co nt i n u a n c e, rev ok ed Nels on ’s s up erv is io n an d se nt en ced hi m to se rv e 12 m on th s’

cu st od y fo ll owe d by 24 m on th s of su pe rv is ed rel eas e. Nels on ap pe al s bo th th e

se nt en ce an d th e de ni al of hi s m ot io n to co nt in ue , arg ui ng th at th e di st ric t co ur t fai le d

to co ns id er th e 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a) fact o r s b y f ai li ng to ap pr op ria te ly weig h an d

co ns id er h is pri or m il it ary se rv ic e, un st ab le li fe co nd it io ns , and he al th is su es

.

Thi s cou rt rev ie ws a se nt en ce im po se d for vi ol at io n of su pe rv is ed rel eas e fo r

a b u s e of di sc ret io n. Uni te d St at es v. Ja sp er, 33 8 F.3 d 86 5, 86 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 0 3 )

. W he n no pr oc ed ur al erro r ha s be en al le ge d, we rev ie w 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. Sh ep ard
, 65 7 F. 3 d 6 8 2
, 68 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ); Uni te d S t a t e s v. Feem st er, 57 2 F.3 d 45 5, 46 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (en ba nc ).

Upo n care fu l rev ie w, we co nc lu de th at th e di s t r i c t co ur t di d no t im po se an

un reas on ab le se nt en ce. See Feem st er, 57 2 F.3 d at 46 1– 62 (rev ie win g reas on ab le ne ss of se nt en ce un de r de fere n t i a l ab us e-o f-d is cret io n st an da rd ); Uni te d St at es v. McC au le y , 71 5 F.3 d 11 19
, 11 27 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ) (“ W he re

. . . a di s t r i c t c o u r t h as

va rie d be lo w th e Gui de li ne s ran ge , it is ‘nearl y in co nc ei va bl e’ th at th e co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in no t va ry in g do wnwar d st il l fu rth er.” (ci ta ti on om it te d) ). The di st ric t

The Hon or ab le Ju dg e Sm it h Cam p, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju d g e f or th e 1 Dis tri ct of Ne br as ka

.
-2

-co ur t co ns id ered al l rel ev an t 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a) fact or s, in cl ud in g Nels on ’s hi st or y

an d ch arac te ris ti cs , th e ne ed to av oi d un warra nt ed se nt en ci ng di sp ari ti es , th e
pr ot ect io n of th e pu bl ic
, an d th e ne ed fo r ge ne ral an d sp eci fic de te rren ce. The di st ric t

co ur t iss ue d the be lo w-g ui de li ne -ran ge te rm of im pr is on m en t ba se d on Nels on ’s postrel eas e co nd uc t in cl ud in g hi s fai lu re to fo ll ow th e te rm s of h i s s up erv is ed rel eas e. Nels on ’s lo ng -te rm ad di ct io n to co nt ro lled subs ta nc es , w hic h he co nti nu ed to st ru gg le wit h at th e ti m e of se nt en ci ng , was al so a si gn ifi can t fact or in th e se nt en ci ng co ur t’s

an al y si s i n t he rev oc at io n a nd re-s en te nc in g.

The st an da rd of rev ie w f

or co nt in ua nc es is si m il arl y de fere nt ia l. Se e U n it ed
St at es v. Ves ey , 33 0 F.3 d 10 70
, 10 71 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ) (“ We rev ie w a de ni al of a

m ot io n fo r co nt in ua nc e fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n.” ); se e al so Uni te d St at es v. Co tro ne o, 89 F.3 d 51 0, 51 4 (8 th Ci r. 19 96 ) (“ Co nt in ua nc es ge ne ral ly are no t fav or ed an d sh ou ld be gr an te d on ly whe n th e pa rty req ue st in g on e ha s sh own a co m pe ll in g r e a so n.” (ci ta ti on om it te d) ). The di st ric t co ur t co ns id ered th e rel ev an t fact or s, in cl ud in g ne w

m ed ic at io n whi ch Nels on rep or te d m ad e hi m feel di ffer en tl y , an d fo un d th e req ue st ed

co nt in ua nc e to be un warra nt ed

. W e fin d no ab us e of di sc ret io n in th is de te rm in at io n.

Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

.

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

-3

-