# 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- 26 78

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

Ja so n R ob ert Zeim es

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 Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - St. Pa ul

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Feb ru ary 10 , 20 14 Fil ed : Ap ril 29 , 20 14 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re SM ITH, BEAM, an d B ENTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

Ja so n Ro be rt Zeim es vi ol at ed h is su pe rv is ed rel eas e. The di st ric t co ur t 1

se nt en ced hi m to 24 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t, ab ov e th e Gui de li ne s ran ge of 6- 12

The Hon or ab le Jo an N. Eric ks en , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1 of Mi nn es ot a.m on th s. Zeim es ap pe al s. Hav in g juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. § 12 91
, th is co ur t

affi rm s.

In 20 08
, Zeim es was se nt en ced to 37 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t an d 5 y ears of

su pe rv is ed rel eas e fo r co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e co cai ne , in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. §§
84 1( b) (1 )(C) an d 84 6. In 20 10
, he was rel eas ed fro m pr is on

. The te rm s of hi s

su pe rv is ed rel eas e req ui red su bm it ti ng to dr ug te st in g, refr ai ni ng f r o m co ns um in g

ex ces si ve am ou nt s of al co ho l, fil in g a m on th ly rep or t wit h hi s pr ob at io n of fic er, an d in fo rm in g th e of

fic er if he le ft Mi nn es ot a. In 20 11
, he di sa pp eare d. Two y ears la te r, he su rfac ed in So ut h Dak ot a whe n arre st ed fo r as sa ul t. He ga ve po li ce a fal se na m e. His bl oo d- al co ho l le ve l was 0.1 6. At hi s rev oc at io n he ari ng , he req ue st ed a wit hi nGui de li ne s se nt en ce, po in ti ng to la w-ab id in g be ha vi or an d em pl oym en t as a

co ns tru ct io n wor ke r. The di st ric t co ur t im po se d th e st at ut or y m ax im um of two y ears in pri so n, fo ll owe d b y

a y ear o f su pe rv is ed rel eas e.

Zeim es at ta ck s th e se nt en ce as un reas on ab le un de r 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a). The

reas on ab le ne ss of a rev oc at io n se nt en ce is rev ie wed fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n. Uni te d
St at es v. Co tt on , 39 9 F.3 d 91 3, 91 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (li st in g fact or s)

. “ A di st ric t co ur t ab us es it s di sc ret io n an d im po se s an un reas on ab le se nt en ce whe n it fai ls to 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 op er fact or , or co ns id ers th e ap pr op ria te fact or s bu t com m it s a cl ear erro r of jud gm en t in weig hi ng th os e fact or s.” Uni te d St at es v. Min er , 54 4 F.3 d 93 0, 93 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ).

“ Alt ho ug h th e di st ric t co ur t is r e qu ire d to co ns id er cert ai n fact or s se t fo rth in §
35 53 (a) in a su pe rv is ed -rel eas e-re vo cat io n se nt en ci ng , ‘the re is no req ui rem en t th at th e di st ric t co ur t m ak e sp eci fic fin di ng s rel at in g to each of th e fact or s co ns id er e d .’

. . . Evi de nc e th at th e di st ric t co ur t was aware of th e rel ev an t § 35 53 (a) fact or s
req ui red to be co ns id ered is su ffi ci en t.” Uni te d St at es v. Fra nk li n , 39 7 F.3 d 60 4, 60 6-
07 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (fo ot no te om it te d)
, qu ot in g Uni te d St at es v. Gra ves , 91 4 F.2 d 15 9,
16 0 (8 th Cir . 19 90 ).

-2

-Zeim es cl ai m s th at “t h e di st ric t co ur t ga ve un du e weig ht to [h is ] ab sc on di ng

fro m su pe rv is io n a nd in su ffi ci en t wei gh t to po si ti ve fact or s.” He c it es cas es wher e th e de fen da nt rece iv ed th e st at ut or y m ax im um aft er res um in g th e be ha vi or fo r whi ch he was or ig in al ly co nv ic te d. E.g.
, Uni te d St at es v. Bea r Rob e , 52 1 F.3 d 90 9, 91 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (d riv in g whe n in to xi cat ed ); Uni te d St at es v. Bak er , 49 1 F.3 d 42 1, 42 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (fra ud ). The di st ric t co ur t was aware of th e po si ti ve fact or s Zeim es hi gh li gh ts

. Bu t, it no te d he m is se d dr ug te st s be fo re di sa pp eari ng , hi s act io ns whi le

un su pe rv is ed are un kn own , an d he was arre st ed wit h a hi gh bl oo d- al co ho l le ve l (“ y ou

weren ’t ex act ly pi ck ed up

. . . st on e co ld s o b er wor ki ng at a ch ur ch ”). The di st ric t

co ur t di d no t a b u s e it s di sc ret io n by im po si ng th e st at ut or y m ax im um

. Se e Uni te d
St at es v. Hol mes , 48 9 Fed

. App x. 97 7, 97 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (p er cu ria m ) (aff irming an ab ov e-Gu i d e l in es , st at ut or y -m ax im um rev oc at io n se nt en ce of 24 m on th s, whe n de fen da nt ha d no t ret ur ne d to th e be ha vi o r f o r whi ch he was or ig in al ly co nv ic te d,

no ti ng th at th is co ur t ha s “ rep eat ed l y affi rm ed st at ut or y m ax im um rev oc at io n

se nt ence s tha t w er e subs ta nti al ly ab ov e th e ad vi so ry gu id el in es ran ge ”); Uni te d St at es

v. Perk in s , 52 6 F.3 d 11 07
, 11 10 -1 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (aff irming a st at ut or y -m ax im um

rev oc at io n sen te nc e of 24 m on th s, whe n de fen da nt ha d no t retu rn ed to th e be ha vi or fo r whi ch he was o rig in al ly con vi ct ed ).

* * * * * * *

The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed

.

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

-3

-