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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 7- 30 44

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ 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.

Ju st in Jo se ph Halt er

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 - Dav en po rt

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

be r 24 , 20 18 Fi le d: Decem

be r 6, 2 01 8 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re SM ITH, Chi ef J ud ge , MELLOY and STRAS, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

Ju st in Jo se ph Halt er ap pe al s his 24- m ont h re voca ti on se nt en ce, arg ui ng th at th e di st ric t co ur t im

po se d a su bs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le sen te nc e. W e aff irm. 1

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

.I. Bac kg ro un d

In 20 04
, Halt er pl ead ed gu il ty to d i s t r i b u t io n of co cai ne , in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. § 84 1( a)(1 ); po ss es si on of a fir earm in fu rth eran ce of dr ug tra ffi ck in g, in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 92 4( c); an d be in g a fel on i n p o s s e s s i o n of a fir earm , in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) (1 ). He was se nt en ced to 14 4 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t

an d 4 8 m on th s o f su pe rv is ed rel eas e.

Afte r hi s rel eas e fro m pr is on , Ha lt er be ga n hi s te rm of su pe rv is ed rel eas e. In May 20 14
, th e di st ric t co ur t rev ok ed Halt er’s su pe rv is ed rel eas e fo r dr ug an d al co ho l

us e, le av in g th e juri sd ic ti on wit ho ut pe rm is si on , an d fai li ng to rep or t to hi s as si gn ed

res id en ti al re-e nt ry cen te r. The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced Halt er to 9 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t an d 36 m on th s of su pe rv is ed rel eas e. As a sp eci al co nd it io n of

su pe rv is io n, th e co ur t or de red Halt er to sp en d up to 12 0 da y s in a res id en ti al re-e nt ry

cen te r up on hi s re le as e fro m pri so n.

The di st ric t co ur t ag ai n rev ok e d Halt er’s su pe rv is ed rel eas e in Ju ne 20 15 be cau se he fai le d to fo ll ow th e res id en ti al re-e nt ry cen te r’s ru le s an d co m m it te d a ne w cri m e. The co ur t se nt en ced Halt er to 24 m on th s’ im pr is on men t an d 6 m on th s of

s u p e r v i s e d rel eas e. The co ur t ag ai n or de red hi m to sp en d up to 12 0 da y s in a

res id en ti al re-e nt ry

cen te r up on hi s re le as e fro m pri so n.

Halt er be ga n hi s m os t rece nt te rm of su pe rv is ed rel eas e in Feb ru ary 20 17

. The

go ve rn m en t so ug ht r e v o c a t io n of hi s su pe rv is ed rel eas e in Mar ch 20 17
, al le gi ng Halt er fai le d to co m

pl y wit h th e res id en ti al re-e nt ry cen te r’s ru le s. The pe ti ti on st at ed th at Halt er, whe n accu se d of dr ug us e by faci li ty st aff, le ft th e faci li ty fo r se ve ral da y s wit ho u t p e r m is si on

. The go ve rn m en t th en fil ed a su pp le m en ta l m em or an du m ad d it io na ll y al le gi ng th at Halt er’s co nd uc t co ns ti tu te d th e cri m e of es cap e, in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 75 1( a), an d was a Grad e B vi ol at io n, m ean in g th at th e di st ric t

co ur t h ad to rev ok e h is rel eas e.

-2

-In it ia ll y , a de pu ty fed eral pu bl ic de fen de r rep res en te d Halt er. Howev er, th at

at to rn ey so ug ht le av e to wit hd raw as co un s e l
, c i t in g a co nf li ct wit h Halt er. The

m ag is tra te jud g e gr an te d th e m ot io n an d ap po in te d Halt er ne w co un se l. Halt er’s

se co nd de fen se at to rn ey al so mo v e d t o w it hd raw on th e ba si s of a co nf li ct wit h Halt er. App aren tl y , Halt er un su cces sf ul ly at te m

pt ed to ge t th e se co nd d e f en se
at to rn ey to pr ov id e hi m wit h th e ho m e ad dr es s of th e pu bl ic de fen de r who ha d

pr ev io us ly rep res en te d hi m

. The reco rd refl ect s Halt er’s at te m pt ed co nt act st em m ed fro m a po ss ib le de si re to th reat en hi s fo rm er co un se l. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d th e

se co nd de fen se att or ne y ’s m ot io n t o wi th dr aw an d a pp oi nt ed Halt er n ew co un se l.

The da y be fo re the rev oc at io n h eari ng , Halt er fi le d a no ti ce adm it ti ng th at he ha d fai le d to fo ll ow th e ru le s of th e res id en ti al re-e nt ry cen te r an d th at su ch co nd uc t
qu a l i f i e d a s an “ es cap e” fo r rev oc at io n pu rp os es

. At th e he ari ng , th e go ve rn m en t
pr es en te d te st im on y ab ou t Halt er’s be ha vi or to ward hi s tw o p r i o r at to rn ey s. The

go ve rn m e n t t h en ack no wled ge d th at Halt er ha d at te m pt ed to pr ov id e co op erat io n
ag ai ns t two de fen da nt s ch arg ed in an un rel at ed st at e ho m ic id e in ve st ig at io n. Bu t th e
go ve rn m en t ha d m ad e no pr om is es to Halt er in ret ur n fo r hi s co op erat io n. The

go ve rn m en t ul ti m at el y de ci de d no t to reco m m en d a do wnwar d va ria nc e fo r Halt er’s

co op erat io n in l ig ht of hi s cri m in al hi st or y , hi st or y of vi ol at io ns on su pe rv is ed rel eas e, de la y ed ad m is si on to vi ol at in g s up erv is ed rel eas e, an d t hr eat en in g c on du ct
to war d h i s p rio r co un se l. The go ve rn m en t req ue st ed a se nt en ce of 27 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t wi th no su pe rv is ed rel eas e to fol lo w.

Halt er so ug ht a se nt en ce of im pr is on m en t fo r 12 m on th s an d on e da y , wit h no

su pe rv is ed rel eas e to fo ll ow. Halt er’s co un se l st at ed hi s be li ef th at th e co ur t was no t

em po wered to im

po se a se nt en ce of m or e th an 24 m on th s. Co un se l em ph as iz ed Halt er’s co op erat io n in th e st at e ho m ic id e cas e an d th e su bs ta nt ia l ti m e he ha d al read y

se rv ed in pr is on fo r su pe rv is ed -rel eas e vi ol at io ns

. Fu rth er, de fen se co un se l no te d th at Halt er was no t am en ab le to su pe rv is io n aft er two pr io r rev oc at io ns

. Co un se l

-3

-at tri bu te d Halt er’s la te ad m is si on to th e vi ol at io n al le ga ti on s to no t ha vi ng cert ai n

pe rti ne nt do cu m en ts un ti l s ho rtl y be fo re t he he ari ng

.

The di st ric t co ur t fo un d th at H a l t e r h ad vi ol at ed th e te rm s of hi s su pe rv is io n

an d rev ok ed hi s su pe rv is ed rel eas e. In de te rm in in g a fin al se nt en ce, th e di st ric t co ur t
st at ed th at it ha d co ns id ered th e fact or s se t fo rth in 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a). Sp eci fic al ly, it co ns id ered Halt er’s reca lc it ran ce whi le on su pe rv is ed rel eas e, hi s th reat en in g be ha vi or to ward pr io r co un se l, an d hi s co op erat io n wit h th e st at e h o mici de in ve st ig at io n. The co ur t co nc lu de d th at Halt er’s ab sc on dm en t was a Grad e B vi ol a ti on an d th at hi s cri m in al hi st or y cat eg or y was VI. The co ur t cal cu la te d a Gui de li ne s ran ge of 21 to 27 m on th s’ i m pr is on m en t an d de te rmi n e d th at th is ran ge ad eq ua te ly add res se d Hal te r’s ci rcu m st an ces . The co ur t co nc lu de d th at a 2 4- m on th

s e n t e n c e wit h no su pe rv is ed rel eas e to fo ll ow 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 of Ha lt er’s cas e.

II. Dis cu ss io n On ap pe al
, Halt er arg ue s th at hi s 2 4

- mo nt h se nt en ce is su bs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le be cau se th e di st ric t co ur t (1 ) fai le d to awa r d h i m an y red uc ti on in

se nt en ce fo r hi s co op erat io n in th e st at e h o mi c i d e in ve st ig at io n; (2 ) im po se d a

se nt en ce th at is su bs ta nt ia ll y gr eat er th an th e se nt en ce th at wou ld ha ve be en im po se d ha d hi s es cap e of

fen se be en in de pe nd en tl y pr os ecu te d; (3 ) m ad e no sp eci fic fin di ng th a t h e in te nd ed to th reat en hi s pr ev io us co un se l; an d (4 ) im po se d an ex ces si ve

am ou nt of i m

pr is on m en t.

“ W e rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t’s se nt en ce on rev oc at io n of su pe rv is ed rel eas e fo r

s u b st an ti ve reas on ab le ne ss un de r th e sa m e reas on ab le ne ss st an da rd th at ap pl ie s t o in it i a l s e n t en ci ng pr oc eed in gs .” Uni te d St at es v. Rob in so n , 71 3 F. App ’x 51 4, 51 7 (8 t h Ci r. 20 17 ) (p er cu ria m ) (cl ean ed up ). W e rev ie w fo r an ab us e of di sc ret io n Halt er’s ch al le ng e to th e su bs ta nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss of hi s se n t e n c e

. I d

. “ A d is tri ct

co ur t ab us es it s di sc ret io n an d i mp o se s an un reas on ab le se nt en ce whe n it fai ls to

-4

-co ns id er a rel ev an t an d si gn ifi can t fact or , gi ve s si gn ifi can t weig ht to an irr el ev an t or

im pr o p e r f a c t o r , or co ns id ers th e ap pr op ria te fact or s bu t co m m it s a cl ear erro r of jud gm en t in w e i g h i n g th os e fact or s.” Id

. (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Kr ei ti ng er , 57 6
F.3 d 50 0, 50 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 )). Our rev ie w “ is na rro w an d de fere nt ia l” in se nt en ci ng

cas es , an d “ it wil l be th e un us ua l cas e whe n we re v e r se a di st ric t co ur t

se nt en ce— whe th er wit hi n, ab ov e, or be lo w th e ap pl ic ab le Gui de li ne s ran ge —as

su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le .” Uni te d St at es v. Feems te r , 57 2 F.3 d 45 5, 46 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (en ba nc ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Gar de ll in i , 54 5 F.3 d 10 89
, 10 90 (D.C. Ci r. 20 08 )).

“ To de te rm in e if th e di st ric t co ur t su ffi ci en tl y ex pl ai ne d th e se nt en ce im po se d,

w e n ot e th at th e co ur t ne ed no t res po nd to ev ery arg um en t m ad e by de fen d a n t o r reci te each se ct io n 35 53 fact or .” Uni te d St at es v. Kea ti ng s , 78 7 F.3 d 11 97
, 12 02 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ). Bu t “ [t]he s e n t e n c i n g jud ge sh ou ld se t fo rth en ou gh to sa ti sf y th e
ap pe ll at e co ur t th at he ha s co ns id ered th e pa rti es ’ arg um en ts an d ha s a reas on ed ba si s fo r ex erci si ng hi s ow n le ga l de ci si on m ak in g au th or it y .” Rit a v. Uni te d St at es , 55 1 U.S. 33 8, 35 6 (2 00 7 )

. “ Non et he le ss , whe n a jud ge de ci de s si m pl y to ap pl y th e Gui de li ne s to a pa rti cu la r cas e, do in g so wil l no t ne ces sa ril y req ui re le ng th y

ex pl an at io n.” Id

. “ Sen te nc es wit hi n th e Gui de li ne s ran ge are pr es um pt iv el y

reas on ab le .” Uni te d St at es v. Bjer ke
, No. 17 -1 83 2, 20 18 W L 37 52 14 3, at *4 (8 th Ci r. Aug . 7, 2 01 8) (pe r cu ria m ).

“ W e pr es um e th e wit hi n- ran ge [2 4- m o nt h] s en te nc e to be reas on ab le su bjec t
to [Hal te r’s] opp or tu ni ty to rebu t t ha t p res um pt io n.” Id

. Bas ed on ou r rev ie w of t he

reco rd
, we co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y co ns id ered th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s

r a i s ed by th e pa rti es an d weig he d th em ap pr op ria te ly. Fi rs t, th e co ur t co ns id e r e d Halt er’s reca lc it ran ce whi le on su pe rv is ed rel eas e. Seco nd
, th e co ur t co ns id ered Halt er’s th reat en in g be ha vi or to ward pr io r co un se l. The co ur t cred it ed th e te st im on y of a su pe rv is or y de pu ty U.S. Mar sh al who te st ifi ed ab ou t th e in fo rm at io n he rece iv ed

co nc ern in g Halt er’s th reat s to ward co un se l, as well as a rep or t fro m Halt er’s se co nd

-5

-de fen se att or ne y ab ou t t he th reat s. Th ird , th e co ur t co ns id ered Halt er’s coo pe rat io n wit h t h e st at e ho m ic id e in ve st ig at io n. The di st ric t co ur t’s co ns id erat io n of th es e fact or s cam e a fte r it he ard arg um en t fro m th e pa rti es co nc ern in g Halt er’s po or

co m pl ia nc e rec or d, t ro ub li ng st at em en ts he m ad e to hi s t he n- cu rren t at to rn ey ab ou t hi s fo rm er at to rn ey , an d hi s as si st an ce to au th or it ie s in a st at e ho m ic id e in ve st ig at io n. W e fin d no ab us e of di sc ret io n in th e co ur t’s co ns id erat io n of th e rel ev an t se nt en ci ng fact or s. Se e Rob in so n , 71 3 F. App ’x at 51 7. Halt er’s wit hi n- ran ge 24 -m on th se nt en ce is su bs ta nt iv el y

reas on ab le

.

III. Co nc lu si on Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

.

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

-6

-