United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 13-3731

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Ricky Lee Laughlin

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis

____________

 Submitted: May 23, 2014

 Filed: July 14, 2014

[Unpublished]

____________

Before BYE, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.
Ricky Laughlin appeals his sentence, challenging the district court’s decision 1

to have the sentence run consecutive to a state sentence and to impose a period of

supervised release. We affirm.

While on supervised release imposed pursuant to a prior federal conviction,

Laughlin stole a grain hopper. During the state trial concerning the theft, Laughlin

twice threatened a witness. Laughlin pleaded guilty to receiving stolen property for

which he was sentenced to five years of incarceration. While the state charges were

pending, Laughlin’s federal probation officer filed a petition for revocation of

Laughlin’s supervised release. At the revocation hearing, Laughlin admitted to

violating the terms of his supervised release. In calculating Laughlin’s sentence, the

district court referred to the pre-sentence investigation report, which detailed

Laughlin’s history of substance abuse. Based on Laughlin’s category VI criminal

history, the district court calculated a guidelinesrange of twenty-one to twenty-seven

months of imprisonment under the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual

(U.S.S.G.). The district court imposed a sentence of twenty-seven months of

imprisonment and twenty-one months of additional supervised release, to run

consecutive to the state sentence.

Laughlin asked the district court to reconsider the supervised release and to run

his sentence concurrent to the state sentence. The district court explained the

sentence “would seem to address the sentencing objectives of just punishment,

general deterrence and incapacitation” and denied Laughlin’s request for

reconsideration. The district court also noted the substance abuse treatment programs

and additional resources available to Laughlin through supervised release. Laughlin

now appeals his sentence arguing it is substantively unreasonable.

The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, United States DistrictJudge for the Eastern 1

District of Missouri.

-2-
We review the substantive reasonableness of Laughlin’s sentence for an abuse

of discretion. United States v. Merrival, 521 F.3d 889, 890 (8th Cir. 2008). Here, we

find none. Our review of the record indicates the district court properly considered

the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and imposed a within-guidelines sentence, which we

presume to be reasonable. United States v. Rubashkin, 655 F.3d 849, 869 (8th Cir.

2011). In addition, the guidelinesrecommend consecutive sentences for incarceration

terms imposed during revocation of supervised release. U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f). The

district court did not abuse its discretion in choosing to impose the sentence

consecutive to the state sentence.

Laughlin also challengesthe imposition of a new period of supervised release. 

While Laughlin alleges a decade of sobriety, he has an otherwise extensive history

ofsubstance abuse. Given this history, and the district court’s observations about the

treatment programs available to Laughlin while on supervised release, the district

court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a new period of supervised release. Cf.

U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1 cmt. n.3(C) (recommending supervised release where substance

abuser receives term of imprisonment). 

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

-3-