1

The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the

District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2125

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Daniel Matthew Synowiecki, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 23, 2007 

Filed: March 2, 2007

___________

Before RILEY, MAGILL, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

While Daniel Synowiecki was serving the supervised release portion of his

bank fraud sentence, he violated his supervised release and the district court1

sentenced him to 12 months in prison and 2 years of supervised release. During his

second period of supervised release, he again violated his supervised release:

ultimately he pleaded guilty to violating multiple release conditions, all Class C

violations. The district court revoked supervised release and sentenced him to 24

months in prison with no further period of supervised release. This appeal followed.
-2-

For reversal Synowiecki argues that the district court failed to consider the applicable

Guidelines Chapter 7 revocation range, and further, that the court abused its discretion

in imposing an excessive sentence and clearly erred in balancing the relevant

sentencing factors. 

Synowiecki is correct that the district court was required to consider the Chapter

7 policy statements, see United States v. Hensley, 36 F.3d 39, 42 (8th Cir. 1994), and

although we believe that the court indicated its awareness of the need to do so, the

court failed to acknowledge the precise Chapter 7 revocation range applying to

Synowiecki’s Grade C violations and criminal history category. Further, the

probation violation worksheet in the record reflects a revocation range that is based

on a Grade B violation. 

Nevertheless, regardless of whether any resulting error is reviewed for plain

error or harmless error, the revocation sentence must be affirmed. First, a district

court remains free to impose a revocation sentence outside the Guidelines range

suggested by the policy statements, if in its discretion the court believes that a higher

sentence is warranted. See United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 922-23 (8th Cir.

2006). Second, our review of the record convinces us that the district court was firm

on the 24-month sentence because of Synowiecki’s history of supervised release

violations and flouting of authority, as well as his need for rehabilitation and to be

incapacitated to protect society. Cf. Williams v. United States, 503 U.S. 193, 202-03

(1992) (when district court misapplies Guidelines, remand is required unless

reviewing court determines, on basis of whole record, that error is harmless, i.e., error

did not affect district court’s selection of sentence imposed); United States v. Sayre,

400 F.3d 599, 600-01 (8th Cir. 2005) (whether sentence was reviewed for plain error

or harmless error, affirmance was appropriate because ultimate inquiry was whether

district court’s error in following nonmandatory sentencing scheme affected

defendant’s ultimate sentence, and it was clear court wanted to impose sentence it felt
-3-

appropriate on undisputed facts, making any remand futile), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct.

198 (2005).

Finally, we conclude that the revocation sentence was not unreasonable. See

18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (court must consider certain factors in determining revocation

sentence, including those set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1) (nature and

circumstances of offense and history and characteristics of defendant), and (a)(2)(C)

(need to protect public from further crimes of defendant)); United States v. Tyson, 413

F.3d 824, 825 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (revocation sentences are reviewed for

unreasonableness in accordance with United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005)).

The district court was clearly concerned about the defendant's multiple violations of

supervised release and the need to protect society. In addition, the district court

articulated as a reason for imposing the sentence she did the defendant's unwillingness

to cooperate with his probation officer or comply with the conditions of supervised

release. The district court's stated reasons for imposing a twenty-four month sentence

are more than adequate to demonstrate the reasonableness of the sentence. 

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________