United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 13-2678

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Jason Robert Zeimes

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul

____________

 Submitted: February 10, 2014

 Filed: April 29, 2014

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SMITH, BEAM, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Jason Robert Zeimes violated his supervised release. The district court

1

sentenced him to 24 months’ imprisonment, above the Guidelines range of 6-12

The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District 1

of Minnesota.
months. Zeimes appeals. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court

affirms.

In 2008, Zeimes was sentenced to 37 months’ imprisonment and 5 years of

supervised release for conspiracy to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§

841(b)(1)(C) and 846. In 2010, he was released from prison. The terms of his

supervised release required submitting to drug testing, refraining from consuming

excessive amounts of alcohol, filing a monthly report with his probation officer, and

informing the officer if he left Minnesota. In 2011, he disappeared. Two years later,

he surfaced in South Dakota when arrested for assault. He gave police a false name. 

His blood-alcohol level was 0.16. At his revocation hearing, he requested a withinGuidelines sentence, pointing to law-abiding behavior and employment as a

construction worker. The district court imposed the statutory maximum of two years

in prison, followed by a year of supervised release.

Zeimes attacks the sentence as unreasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The

reasonableness of a revocation sentence is reviewed for abuse of discretion. United

States v. Cotton, 399 F.3d 913, 916 (8th Cir. 2005) (listing factors). “A district court

abuses its discretion and imposes an unreasonable sentence when it fails to consider

a relevant and significant factor, gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper

factor, or considers the appropriate factors but commits a clear error of judgment in

weighing those factors.” United States v. Miner, 544 F.3d 930, 932 (8th Cir. 2008). 

“Although the district court is required to consider certain factors set forth in §

3553(a) in a supervised-release-revocation sentencing, ‘there is no requirement that

the district court make specific findings relating to each of the factors considered.’

. . . Evidence that the district court was aware of the relevant § 3553(a) factors

required to be considered issufficient.” United States v. Franklin, 397 F.3d 604, 606-

07 (8th Cir. 2005) (footnote omitted), quoting United States v. Graves, 914 F.2d 159,

160 (8th Cir. 1990).

-2-
Zeimes claims that “the district court gave undue weight to [his] absconding

from supervision and insufficient weight to positive factors.” He cites cases where

the defendant received the statutory maximum after resuming the behavior for which

he was originally convicted. E.g., United States v. Bear Robe, 521 F.3d 909, 910 (8th

Cir. 2008) (driving when intoxicated); United States v. Baker, 491 F.3d 421, 423 (8th

Cir. 2007) (fraud). The district court was aware of the positive factors Zeimes

highlights. But, it noted he missed drug tests before disappearing, his actions while

unsupervised are unknown, and he was arrested with a high blood-alcohol level (“you

weren’t exactly picked up . . . stone cold sober working at a church”). The district

court did not abuse its discretion by imposing the statutory maximum. See United

States v. Holmes, 489 Fed. Appx. 977, 979 (8th Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (affirming an

above-Guidelines, statutory-maximum revocation sentence of 24 months, when

defendant had not returned to the behavior for which he was originally convicted,

noting that this court has “repeatedly affirmed statutory maximum revocation

sentences that were substantially above the advisory guidelinesrange”); United States

v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107, 1110-11 (8th Cir. 2008) (affirming a statutory-maximum

revocation sentence of 24 months, when defendant had not returned to the behavior

for which he was originally convicted).

* * * * * * *

The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

-3-