UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

DEWAYNE ANTWON THOMPSON, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 23-6214 

(D.C. No. 5:06-CR-00212-F-1) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before PHILLIPS, BRISCOE, and CARSON, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Defendant Dewayne Antwon Thompson appeals the revocation sentence 

imposed by the district court for Thompson violating the terms of his supervised 

release. Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm Thompson’s 

revocation sentence. 

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of 

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding 

precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral 

estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with 

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

May 7, 2024

Christopher M. Wolpert 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 23-6214 Document: 010111044941 Date Filed: 05/07/2024 Page: 1
2 

I 

 In 2007, Thompson pleaded guilty to one count of knowingly and intentionally 

distributing five grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), 

and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 135 months, to be followed by a 

five-year term of supervised release. Following two sentence modifications, 

Thompson was released from prison and began his first term of supervised release on 

January 20, 2012. Thompson’s first term of supervised release was revoked on May 

7, 2014, and he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of twenty-four months, to 

be followed by a sixty-month term of supervised release. 

 In October 2023, while Thompson was on supervised release, his probation 

officer filed a petition with the district court alleging that Thompson had committed 

four violations of the mandatory conditions of his supervised release. The district 

court held a revocation hearing on December 12, 2023. At the outset of the hearing, 

Thompson’s counsel admitted two of the violations: (1) that Thompson submitted a 

urine specimen in November 2022 that tested positive for cocaine and subsequently 

admitted to his probation officer that he smoked a cigarette that contained cocaine; 

and (2) that Thompson submitted diluted urine specimens on three occasions in June 

and July 2022. The government then presented three witnesses in support of the 

remaining two alleged violations. At the conclusion of the testimony, the district 

court found that Thompson had violated the terms of his supervised release by 

possessing and brandishing a firearm during a domestic violence incident. The 

district court then sentenced Thompson to a term of imprisonment of 

Appellate Case: 23-6214 Document: 010111044941 Date Filed: 05/07/2024 Page: 2
3 

thirty-six months, to be followed by a five-year term of supervised release. In doing 

so, the district court stated on the record “that a guideline sentence is not sufficient 

. . . to satisfy the statutory objectives of sentencing.” R., Vol. 3 at 62. The district 

court noted, in particular, that Thompson’s possession and brandishing of a firearm 

during a domestic violence incident was “a matter of serious concern from the 

standpoint of the need to protect the public and on the basis of the seriousness of the 

nature and circumstances of the offense.” Id. at 61–62. 

 Thompson now appeals the revocation sentence. 

II 

 Thompson argues that the revocation sentence imposed by the district court 

was not substantively reasonable. Thompson notes in support that the 

thirty-six month term of imprisonment “was double the top end of the recommended 

guideline range of 12 to 18 months.” Aplt. Br. at 6. He argues that “[t]here was 

insufficient cause to issue an upward variance,” and “[t]he district court ignored 

and/or devalued significant mitigating factors,” including the fact that he “had a 

tough life,” was holding a job on supervised release, was “in a very complicated 

personal relationship with the victim” of the domestic violence incident, and “was 

heavily intoxicated” at the time of that incident. Id. at 6, 9–10. 

 “We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of 

discretion.” United States v. Kaspereit, 994 F.3d 1202, 1207 (10th Cir. 2021). 

Under this standard of review, we give “substantial deference to the district court’s 

determination” and will “overturn [the] sentence as substantively unreasonable only 

Appellate Case: 23-6214 Document: 010111044941 Date Filed: 05/07/2024 Page: 3
4 

if it is arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or manifestly unjust.” Id. Further, where, as 

here, the district court imposes an above-Guidelines sentence, we “must consider the 

extent of the deviation and ensure that the justification is sufficiently compelling to 

support the degree of the variance.” United States v. Peña, 963 F.3d 1016, 1029 

(10th Cir. 2020 (internal quotation marks omitted). 

 In announcing its sentence, the district court stated that it had considered 

Thompson’s “history and characteristics.” R., Vol. 3 at 61. The district court 

acknowledged that “it may well be that [Thompson] was doing well on supervision,” 

noting that “[h]is record was not spotless.” Id. The district court concluded, 

however, that Thompson’s general record on supervision “d[id] not detract from . . . 

the danger” his conduct during the domestic violence incident posed “to the public” 

and “to people within his circle of family members and acquaintances and 

neighbors.” Id. Specifically, the district court noted that Thompson’s “proclivity to 

get vocal and violent and make threats and brandish a gun” was “a matter of serious 

concern.” Id. The district court also noted that this serious misconduct occurred 

“against the backdrop of” Thompson’s criminal history of “dealing crack.” Id. at 62. 

The district court stated: 

I have no reason to believe that he returned to that way of life after he 

was released, but the fact that we had an individual convicted of that 

serious crime, originally sentenced to 135 months of incarceration, 

which was amended to 108 months and then was amended to time 

served, and then had a revocation sentence of 24 months, gives me 

serious concern as to the prospects for Mr. Thompson redirecting his 

life in a productive and constructive and law-abiding direction. 

Appellate Case: 23-6214 Document: 010111044941 Date Filed: 05/07/2024 Page: 4
5 

Id. Ultimately, the district court “conclude[d] that a guideline sentence [wa]s not 

sufficient” and that an above-guideline sentence of thirty-six months’ incarceration, 

along with an additional term of supervised release of five years, was appropriate. 

Id. 

Based upon this record, we conclude the district court did not abuse its 

discretion in imposing a sentence above the Guidelines sentencing range. The 

reasons cited by the district court in support of the sentence imposed, which are 

essentially undisputed, are, in our view, sufficiently compelling to support the length 

of the selected sentence. 

III 

 We AFFIRM the revocation sentence imposed by the district court. 

Entered for the Court 

Mary Beck Briscoe 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 23-6214 Document: 010111044941 Date Filed: 05/07/2024 Page: 5