# UnitedStates CourtofAppeals Fo r th e Se ve n th C irc u it Ch i cago , I l l i noi s 6 0604 A rgued D ecem ber10 , 20 08 Deci ded J une 12, 20 09 B efo re R IC H A R D A . PO SN E R, Cir cu i tJudg e M IC H A E L S. K A N N E , Cir cu i tJudg e IL A N A D IA M O N D R O V N E R, Cir cu i tJudg e
N o. 08
- 2995 U N I TE D STA TE S OF A M ER I CA , ] A pp ealfro m the U ni ted ] S tat es Dist ri ct Cour t for P la intif f-A pp ellee, ] the So uthern Dist ri ct o f ] Ind i ana, Ind i anapol i s Di vi si on v . ] ] N o. 98 CR 00095 DA M ON W
. LI N DS EY, ] ] S ara h Ev an s Ba rk er, D ef endant-Appellant. ] Judge.

O R D E R I n J anuary, 19 99, Dam on Li nd seypl ed gui l ty to posse ssi on with i ntent to dist ribute coca i ne bas e in vi ol ati on o f21 U
. S. C. § 8 41( a) ( 1) and w as sente nced to 135 m onths’ i m pr i so nm en t f o l l o wed b y 5 y ea r s o fs upe r vi se d r el ea se . Afte rAm en dm en t 70 6 o fthe Gui del i ne s r edu ce d the b as e o ffen se l ev el s f o rc r ac kc o ca i ne o ffen se s, Li nds eys o ug hta nd ob ta in ed a se n te n c e re d u c tio n u n d er 18 U .S.C . § 35 82 (c ). See U .S.S.G ., Su p p . to A p p . C 226- 31 ( 2008 ) ( “A m endm ent 7 06”)
. His sente nce was r educed to t i m e s er ved effecti ve 

### NO NPRE CE DE NT IAL D ISP OSIT ION Tobec ite d only

in ac c orda

nc ewith Fe d. R. App. P. 32.1N o. 08
- 2995 

### 2

M ar ch1 3, 2 00 8, a nd he e m ba r k ed upo n h i s fi ve - y ea rt er m o fs upe r vi se d r el ea se . On e condi ti on o fthatsuperv i sed r el eas e was thathe no t co m m i t a notherfedera l, st ate o r l oca l cri m e. W ith intw o w ee ks , L in d se y h ad an ot h er en c ou n te r w ith th e c rim in al leg al s ys te m . O n M ar c h 27, 200 8, h e w as arr es te d an d ch ar ge d in s ta te co u rtw ith bu rg lar y re su ltin g in bodi l y inj ury, ar m ed robber y, and bat ter y b y m eans ofa deadlyweapon. Thos e cha rg es ste m m ed fro m an inci dent i n w hi ch approxi m ate l y four m en i ncl ud i ng Li nd seydro ve to the v i cti m ’ s ho use, br oke dow n the doorand bea t hi m i n an appare nt at tem pt to st eal d rugs beli eved to be at the h ou se. Th e m en l eft w ith $200 0 in cash, as w ell s as the victim ’s coa t, wall et and neckl ace. W i thi n approxi m ate l y s i x m i nutes, Li nd seyand hi s a ccom pli ces we r e a r r e s t e d t wo b l o c k s a wa y . L i n d s e y wa s we a r i n gth e s t o l e n n e c k l a c e , a n d h e a n d t wo ot h er m en arr es te d ea c h p os se ss ed be tw ee n $5 00 an d $5 10 in c as h on th em . A pet i ti o n t o r ev o k e Li nds ey ’ s su per vi se d r el ea se was the n fi l ed. Afte ra he ar i ngthe m ag i st r at e j udg e f o und Linds eyt o b e i n v i o l at i o n o fthe t er m s o fs upe r vi se d r el ea se , a nd r ec o m m en ded r ev o ca ti o n o ftha t r el ea se a nd a t er m o fi nc ar ce r at i o n o f6 0 m o nths
. T he d ist ric t c ou rtad op te d th at rep or t a n d rec om m en d at ion, an d L in d se y a p p ea ls. O n ap p ea l, L ind sey d oes not argue that the evid en ce w as insu ffici en t to sup p ort the cou rt’s deter m i nati on that he com m i tte d the ab ove o ffenses . His onl y c onte nti on o n appeal i s that th e co ur t f ai l ed to c o ns i derthe § 3 55 3 f ac to r s when i m po singa s en te nc e th atwas 2 3 m o nths lon ge r th an th e u p p er G u id elin e ra n ge . Se e 1 8 U .S.C . § 35 53
. Pursuant t o 18 U
. S. C. § 3 583( e) , a cour t m ay re vok e a defendant’s superv i sed r el eas e an d im p os e a se n te n c e a fte r c on sid er in g t h e fa c to rs se t fo rt h in 1 8 U .S.C . § 35 53 (a). Th er e is n o re q u ire m en t t h at th e c ou rtex p licit ly id en tify an d d isc u ss ea c h fac to r; it is su fficie n t if th e cou rt prop erly calcu lates the Gu idelines ran ge, an d prov ides reason s for its dep artu re th at refle c t t h e fa c to rs se t fo rt h in § 35 53
. U nited Sta tes v. To ck es , 530 F.3d 628 , 634 (7th C ir. 2008 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. D e an , 414 F.3d 72 5, 72 9 (7 th C ir. 20 05 ); Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 42 5 F
. 3d 47 8, 4 80 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 5)
. Tha t st an dar d was met he r e. In de ci di ngt o de par t fr o m the Gu i del i nes r ange, the cour t no ted thatLi nd seyhad com m i tte d cri m es ofvi ol ence that r es ul te d i n ph y si ca li nj ur y t o the v i ct i m , a nd de cl ar ed th atb ec au se o fthe na tu r e o fthe com m i tte d offenses and beca use he had onl y b een r el eas ed fro m custo dy f ortwo w eek s w h en h e c om m itt ed th os e v iole n t c rim es , a d ep ar tu re w as ap p ro p ria te . Tho se c o ns i der at i o ns tha t f o r m ed th e ba si s f o rthe de par tu r e r efl ec t a numbero fthe § 35 53 f ac to r s, i nc l udi ngc o ns i der at i o n o fthe na tu r e an d c i r cumst an ce s o fthe o ffen se , the hi st o r y a nd c ha r ac te r i st i cs o fthe de fen dan t, the ne ed f o rthe s en te nc e to r efl ec t th e ser i ousness o fthe offense and prom ote r espectf orthe l aw , the need to pro vi de adequate det er r en ce , a nd the pr o te ct i o n o fthe pub l i c. T he c o ur t f o cus ed o n the v i o l en t na tu r e o ftheN o. 08
- 2995 

### 3

cr i m e whi chpl ac ed th e vi ct i m i n fea rf o rhi s l i fe an d r es ul te d i n ph y si ca linj ur i es , a nd the ex tr em ely sh or t w in d ow be tw ee n h is re lea se an d h is c om m iss ionof th os e v iole n t o ffen se s. T hos e factors are rel evan t un d er the factors li sted above, i n th at th ey ad d ress th e nat ure an d s er i o us ne ss o fthe o ffen se , the ne ed to de te rs uchc o nduc t an d pr o m o te r es pec t f o rthe l aw , and the danger posed to the pu bl i c. Cer tainl y, i t was r eas onabl e forthe cour t t o d et er m in e t h at a d efe n d an t w h o w ou ld co m m it s u c h a se riou s a n d vio len t o ffen se w ith in w ee ks of h is re lea se p os ed a sp ec ial d an ge r an d w ar ra n te d a m or e s ev er e s en te n c e. Because the f acto rs i denti fi ed by the c ourtto support the s entence were the pr oper co ns i der at i o ns unde r§ 3 55 3, Li nds eyha s f ai l ed to de m o ns tr at e er r o ri n the s en te nc e. T he deci si on o fthe dist ri ct c ourti s AFFI RM ED
.