# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 3- 19 62

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ 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.
Ty so n M ars he k

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l 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 So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa - Des M oi ne s

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 23 , 20 13 Fi le d: Octo be r 28 , 20 13 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re MUR PHY, MELLOY, an d S HEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

Ty so n Mar sh ek ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s im po si ti on of a 14 -m on th se nt en ce 1

res ul ti ng fro m th e se co nd rev oc at io n of Mar sh ek ’s su pe rv is ed rel eas e. Mar sh ek

The Hon or ab le Jo hn A. Ja rv ey , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e So ut he rn 1 Dis tri ct of I owa

.co nt en ds th e di st ric t co ur t fai le d to ad eq ua te ly co ns id er Ch ap te r 7 of th e Sen te nc in g

Gui de li ne s an d th e fact or s un de r 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a) an d th us im po se d an

un reas on ab le sen te nc e. W e aff irm.

In 20 03
, th e Uni te d Stat es Dis tri ct Co ur t for th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of Geo rg ia

se nt en ced Mar sh ek to 72 m on th s im pr is on m en t an d 3 y ears of su pe rv is ed rel eas e fo r

a ba nk ro bb ery co nv ic ti on

. Ju ris di ct io n ov er Mar sh ek was tra ns ferr ed to th e Uni te d
St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of Io wa. On Ju ly 2, 20 08
, Mar sh ek be ga n s erv in g su pe rv is ed rel eas e, bu t, on ly t wo m on th s l at er, an arre st warran t was is su ed fo r Mar sh ek ba se d on th e al le ga ti on th at h e h ad le ft th e di st ric t wit ho ut
pe rm is si on of t he co ur t or pro ba ti on off ic er. Two years l at er, Ma rs he k was lo cat ed in Cal ifo rn ia an d arre st ed

. The di st ric t cou rt rev ok ed Mar sh ek ’s su pe rv is ed rel eas e

an d s e n te nc ed hi m to 8 m on th s im pr is on m en t to be fo ll owe d by 28 m on th s of

su pe rv is ed rel eas e.

Mar sh ek se rv ed hi s ad di ti on al im pr is on m en t ti m e an d was ag ai n pl aced on

su pe rv is ed rel eas e

. W it hi n two m on th s of th e co m m en cem en t of hi s su pe rv is ed rel eas e, an ot he r arre st warra nt was is su ed fo r hi m al le gi ng , am on g ot he r th in gs , th at he ag ai n le ft th e di s t r i c t wit ho ut pe rm is si on

. A y ear la te r, Mar sh ek was lo cat ed in Virg in ia an d arre st ed

. The di st ric t co ur t ag ai n rev ok ed Mar sh ek ’s su pe rv is ed rel eas e,

se nt en ced hi m to 14 m on th s im pr is on m en t, an d de ci de d th at no te rm of s u pe rv is ed rel eas e wou ld fol lo w.

Dur in g th e rev oc at io n he ari ng , Mar sh ek an d hi s co un se l di sc us se d Mar sh ek ’s he al th is su es in cl ud in g sym pt om s of Mu lt ip le Scl ero si s and li ve r di ffi cu lt ie s. Afte r

reco gn iz in g th at it ha d co ns id ered “ each of th e fact or s fo un d in Tit le 18
, Uni te d St at es Co de
, Sect io n 35 53 (a), as well as th e Sen te nc in g Gui de li n e s C h a p te r 7 Po li cy St at em en ts ,” (Tr. 6) , th e d is tri ct co ur t i m po se d t he 14 -m on th sen te nc e wit h no te rm of su pe rv is ed rel eas e. The co ur t no te d th is se nt en ce was “ su ffi ci en t, bu t no t gr eat er th an ne ces sa ry , to ad dr es s t he ess en ti al sen te nc in g c on si de rat io ns .” (Tr. 13 .)

-2

-Mar sh ek ap pe al s hi s se nt en ce, arg ui ng th e di st ric t co ur t co m m it te d pr oc ed ur al

erro r in fai li ng to co ns id er th e Ch ap te r 7 po li cy st a te m en ts an d th e se ct io n 35 53 (a) fact or s, an d th is pr oc ed ur al erro r res ul te d i n a su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le sen te nc e.

W e rev ie w a rev oc at io n se nt en ce un de r th e sa m e “defer en ti al ab us e-o f-d is cret io n” st an da rd we ap pl y to ini tia l se nten ci ng pr oc eed in gs , co ns id eri ng

“ bo th th e pr oc ed ur al so un dn es s of th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on an d th e su bs ta nt iv e

reas on ab le ne ss of th e se nt en ce im po se d.” Uni te d St at es v. Th un de r, 55 3 F.3 d 60 5, 60 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. Bec au se Mar sh ek fa i l e d t o r ai se hi s
pr oc ed ur al ob

jecti on s at se nt en ci ng , we rev ie w an y cl ai m of pr oc ed ur al erro r fo r pl ai n

erro r on ly. Fed

. R. Cri m

. P. 52 (b ); se e al so Uni te d St at es v. Town se nd
, 61 8 F.3 d 91 5, 91 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ), cert

. de ni ed
, 13 1 S. Ct

. 15 15 (2 01 1)

. To su ccee d un de r pl ai nerro r rev ie w, Mar sh ek “ m us t sh ow: (1 ) an erro r; (2 ) th at is pl ai n; an d (3 ) th at affe ct s

su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s.” Town se nd
, 61 8 F.3 d at 91 8 (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. “ An erro r affe ct s

su bs ta nt i a l rig ht s if th ere is a ‘reaso na bl e pr ob ab il it y ’ th at in it s ab se nc e a m or e fav or ab le se nt en ce wou ld ha ve be en im po se d.” Uni te d St at es v. Mea ns , 36 5 F. App ’x 72 0, 72 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (u np ub li sh ed pe r cu ria m ) (ci ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Pi ran i, 40 6 F.3 d 5 43 , 55 2 (8 th Cir . 20 05 )).

Mar sh ek can no t sh ow th at th e di st ric t co ur t co m m it te d a pr oc ed ur al erro r whe n it se nt en ced hi m to 14 m on th s im pr is on m en t. The co ur t no te d th at , be fo re de ci di ng

on a se nt en ce, it ha d co ns id ered bo th th e C h a p te r Sev en po li cy st at em en ts an d th e

se ct io n 35 53 (a) se nt en ci ng fact or s. A de ta il ed li st in g an d di sc us si on of each el em en t of Ch ap te r Sev en or each fact or of se ct io n 35 53 (a) is no t req ui red
, pa rti cu la rly whe n th e de fen da n t d o e s n o t ob ject at se nt en ci ng to th e ad eq ua cy of th e co ur t’s

ex pl an at i o n

. See Uni te d St at es v. Feem st er, 57 2 F.3 d 45 5, 46 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (en ba nc ). Acco rd in gl y , we reject Mars he k’s cl ai m of p ro ced ur al erro r.

Mo reo ve r, we reject Mar sh ek ’s cl ai m th a t h i s ab ov e-Gu id el in es se nt en ce is

su bs ta nti ve ly unre as on ab le

. W hi le a di st ric t co ur t m us t cal cu la te th e su gg es te d ran ge ,

-3

-it is no t bo un d to im po se a se nt en ce wit hi n th at ran ge

. The Ch ap te r Sev en gu id el in es

su gg es te d a po st -rev oc at io n se nt en ci ng ra ng e fo r Mar sh ek of th ree to ni ne m on th s ba se d on th e Grad e C vi ol at io n fo r le av in g th e di st ric t wit ho ut pe rm is si on

. Uni te d
St at es Sen te nc in g Co m

m is si on , Gui de li ne s Man ua l
, § § 7B 1.1 (a)( 3) ; 7B 1.4 (a). Tho ug h Mar sh ek ’s se nt en ce was lo ng er th an th e po st -rev oc at io n se nt en ce su gg es te d

un de r Ch a p te r 7, “ [w]e ha ve lo ng reco gn iz ed th e pu rel y ad vi so ry na tu re of th e Ch ap te r 7 po li cy st at em en ts .” Uni te d St at es v. Laris on , 43 2 F.3d 92 1, 92 2 (8 th Ci r. 2 0 0 6 )

. We ha ve co ns is te nt ly fo un d th at a de fen da nt ’s rep eat ed vi ol at io ns o f

su pe rv is ed rel eas e can jus ti fy a po st -rev oc at io n s en te nc e wel l ab ov e th at su gg es te d by th e Ch ap te r 7 po li cy st a t e men t s

. S e e, e.g ., Lari so n, 43 2 F.3 d at 92 2- 24 ; Uni te d
St at es v. Co tt on , 39 9 F.3 d 91 3, 91 6- 17 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) ( a f f i r ming a 46 -m on th

se nt en ce fo r rep eat ed vi ol at io ns whe re th e ad vi so ry ran ge was 7 to 13 mo n t h s )

. Co ns id eri ng Mar sh ek ’s hi st or y of vi ol at in g th e te rm s of su pe rv is ed rel eas e, it was no t

un reas o n a b l e f

o r th e co ur t to im

po se a lo ng er se nt en ce wit h no su pe rv is ed rel eas e. Acco rd in gl y , th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t abu se it s co ns id erab le di sc ret io n in im po si ng th e 1 4- m on th sen te nc e.

W e aff irm.

__

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

-4

-