## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 1- 10 38

__ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca, *

* App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Pl ai nt iff - App el le e, * Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e

* Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa

.

v. *

* [PUBLISHED]
Cl in to n Yo un g, *

*
Defen da nt - App el la nt

. *

__ __ __ __ __ _

Su bm it te d: May 19, 2 01 1
Fi le d: May 31, 2 01 1

__ __ __ __ __ _

Befo re MUR PHY, BEAM, an d C OLLOTO N, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ _

PER CURI AM.

Cl in to n You ng ’s su pe rv is ed rel eas e was rev ok ed whe n he fa ile d to co m ply w ith

a co nd it io n p ro hi bi ti ng hi m fro m co ns um in g al co ho l. The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced 1

You ng to 8 m on th s in pr is on , th e m id dl e o f hi s ad vi so ry gu id el in e ran ge

. You ng

arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t co m m it te d pr oc ed ur al erro r an d 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.

The Hon or ab le Lin da R. Rea de

, Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r 1

th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa

.In Ju ly 20 07 You ng pl ed gu il ty to be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm

. His

un de rlyin g fel on ie s in cl ud ed two co nv ic ti on s fo r dr iv in g whi le in to xi cat ed

. In to ta l,

You ng ha d pr ev io us ly be en co nv ic te d of dr iv in g whi le in to xi cat ed fo ur ti m es , pu bl ic

in to xi cat io n fo ur ti m es , as well as se ve ral ot he r cri m es

. In Octo be r 20 09 he was
rel eas ed fro m pr is on an d be ga n se rv in g th ree y ears on su pe rv is ed rel eas e. Am on g th e

co nd i t i o n s th e di st ric t co ur t im po se d was a pr oh ib it io n fro m us in g al co ho l an d a

req ui rem en t t o p art ic ip at e in a rem ot e al co ho l t es ti ng pro gr am cal le d VIC AP.

In Ju ly 20 10 pr ob at io n of fic ers co nd uc te d an un an n o u n ced vi si t at You ng ’s

ho m e. B efo re en te rin g, th ey ob se rv ed You ng rem ov e a bo tt le of al co ho l fro m th e

ki tc he n ta bl e. The y al so sa w two op en be er can s as th ey wen t in

. You ng in it ia ll y li ed

ab ou t hi s al co ho l co ns um pt io n, bu t ev en tu al ly ad m it te d to dr in ki ng “ ha lf of a be er.”

He st at ed th at if he “ wan t[e d] to ha ve a be er,” th en he was “ go in g to go dd am n do so .”

Tho ug h You ng su cces sf

ul ly co m pl e t ed ou tp at ie nt su bs ta nc e ab us e tre at m en t

in Sep te m

be r 20 10

, he fai le d to pr ov id e a br eat h sa m p l e fo r VICAP in Octo be r.

Acco rd in g to th e pr ob at io n of fic e, You ng ha d no t be en te st ed be cau se of hi s pr of an it y

an d hi s la ck of co op erat io n wit h VICAP op erat or s. In Octo be r an d earl y Nov em be r

20 10

, You ng fai le d to p r o vi de a br eat h sa m pl e fo r VICAP on se ve n di ffer en t

oc cas io ns

. In res po ns e th e di st ric t co ur t m od ifi ed You ng ’s co nd it io ns of su pe rv is ed

rel eas e to in cl ud e two co ns ecu ti ve week en ds in jail . Never th el es s, Yo un g fa il ed to

pr ov id e an ot he r br eat h sa m pl e in la te Nov e mb er an d te st ed po si ti ve fo r al co ho l in

earl y Decem be r. You ng in it ia ll y

de ni ed co ns um in g a lc oh ol , bu t l at er ad m it te d i t.

The go ve rn m en t pe ti ti on ed to rev ok e You ng ’s su pe rv is ed rel eas e in Decem be r

20 10

. You ng ad m it te d to vi ol at in g hi s su pe rv is ed rel eas e co nd it io ns , an d th e pa rti es

ag reed th at th e ap pl ic ab le gu id el in e ran ge was 5 to 11 m on t h s. You ng arg ue d,

ho wev er, th at rev oc at io n of hi s su pe rv is ed rel eas e was no t req ui red un de r ap pl ic ab le

se nt en ci ng gu id el in es be cau se hi s fai lu re to co m pl y wit h th e al co ho l co nd it io ns was

on ly a Grad e C V io la ti on

. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1 .4(a ). He al so co nt en de d th at he ha d

-2

-su cces sf

ul ly in te gr at ed in to th e co m m un it y by m ai nt ai ni ng st ea d y e mp lo y m en t, a

st ab le res id en ce, an d b y

fai li ng to vi ol at e th e la w.

The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced You ng to 8 m on th s i n p r i s o n

. It reject ed hi s

arg um en t th at be cau se he ha d sa ti sf ie d th e go al s of su pe rv is ed rel eas e he sh ou ld no t

be gi ve n jail ti m e. In it s vi ew You ng was “ a pe rs on wit h a n al co ho l pr ob le m who

,

un ti l ab ou t 5 m in ut es ag o, ha s li ed to hi s pr ob at io n of fic er, refu se d t o co m

pl y wit h

VICAP, ev en to th e po in t of us in g pr of an it y an d fai li ng to co op erat e.” The co ur t

ex pr es se d co nc ern ab ou t h i s h i s to ry of al co ho l rel at ed cri m es an d th e in effi cacy of

le ss r e s t r i c t iv e sa nc ti on s su ch as ou tp at ie nt tre at m en t an d m od ifi cat io n of hi s

s u p e r v i s ed rel eas e. The co ur t co nc lu de d: “ I ha ve no fai th th at , we re I to le av e h i m

ou t in th e co m

m un it y , th at he wou ld su dd en ly beco m e co m pl ia nt an d d o wh at he is

su pp os ed to do , bec au se th at is no t h is hi st or y wit h t hi s co ur t.”

On ap pe al

, we rev ie w a rev oc at io n se nt en ce un de r th e sa m e "d efer en ti al ab us eof -d isc re tio n" sta

nda rd tha t ap pli es to ini tia l se nten ci ng pr oc eed in gs , co ns id eri ng bo th

th e "p ro ced ur al so un dn es s of th e di st ric t co ur t's de ci si on an d th e s u b st an ti ve

reas o n ab le ne ss of th e se nt en ce im po se d." Uni te d St at es v. Thu nd er, 55 3 F.3 d 60 5,

60 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). A di st ric t co ur t ne e d n o t "m ech an ic al ly li st ev ery § 35 53 (a)

co ns id erat io n when se nt en ci ng a de fen da nt up on rev oc at io n of su pe rv is ed rel eas e; "

ev id en ce "t ha t th e di st ric t co ur t w as aware of th e rel ev an t § 35 53 (a) fact or s" is

su ffi ci en t, an d t hi s ev id en ce ca n b e in ferr ed fro m th e rec or d. Id . at 6 08

.

You ng fir st arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t co m m it te d pr oc ed ur al erro r by fai li ng

to ex pl ai n “ ho w rev oc at io n an d in carc erat io n fo r 8 m on t h s f u r t he red th e go al s of

su pe rv is ed rel eas e,” es pe ci al ly gi v en hi s “ st ab le em pl oym en t, st ab le li vi ng

arra ng em en t, an d ab se nc e of an y cri m in al co nd uc t.” Co nt rary to You ng 's as se rti on s,

h owe ve r, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t "i gn or e[] th e us efu l th in gs th at ha d be e n

acco m pl is he d on s u p e r v is ed rel eas e." Rat he r, it si m pl y ga ve m or e weig ht to th e

am pl e ev id en ce of You ng 's fai lu re to co m pl y wit h th e al co ho l co nd it io ns , hi s fai lu re

-3

-to te ll th e tru th to th e pr ob at io n of fic er, an d th e pr ev io us ly fu ti le effo rts to ge t You ng

to ab st ai n fro m al co ho l us in g le ss st rin ge nt co ns eq ue nc es

. Ju st as in Th u nd er, th e

co ur t's di sc us si on m or e th an ad eq ua te ly refl ect s th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s. See id

. at 60 8.

W e al so ag ree wit h t h e g o v e rn m en t th at th e di st ric t co ur t m us t ex pl ai n on ly why it

im po se d th e se nt en ce it di d, no t why it di d no t im po se so m e ot he r se nt en ce. See Gall

v. Uni te d St at es , 55 2 U.S. 38

, 50 (2 0 0 7 )

. Th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t co m m it

pr oc ed ur al erro r.

You ng al so arg ue s th at hi s 8 m on th se nt en ce is su b s t a nt iv el y un reas on ab le

be cau se th e go al s of su pe rv is ed rel eas e co ul d ha v e b een ach ie ve d wit ho ut se nd in g

hi m to pr is on

. Sp eci fic al ly, You ng arg ue s th at hi s go od wor k et hi c, st ab le ho m e, an d

at te nt io n to hi s m ed ic al ne ed s m ak e th is cas e m uc h di ffer en t th an cas es in whi ch we

ha ve up he ld rev oc at io n se nt en ces ag ai ns t cl ai m s of su bs ta nt iv e un reas on ab le ne ss

. Co m pa re Th un de r, 55 3 F .3d at 60 7; Uni te d Stat es v. Be ar Ro be , 52 1 F .3d 90 9, 9 10
(8 th Cir . 20 08 ); Un it ed Sat es v. Me rri va l, 5 21 F.3d 88 9, 8 90 –9 1 (8 th Cir . 20 08 ).

We di sa gr ee. The di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in im po si n g a

se nt en ce in th e m id dl e of You ng 's ad vi so ry gu id el in e ran ge

. It cert ai nl y co ul d ha ve

se le ct ed a m or e l e n i e n t se nt en ce, bu t gi ve n You ng 's nu m ero us pr ev io us fai lu res to

c om pl y wit h th e su pe rv is ed rel eas e co nd it io ns an d th e fact th at th e m od ifi cat i o n o f

hi s su pe rv is ed rel eas e ha d no t pr od uc ed co m pl ia nc e, it w a s well wit hi n th e co ur t's

di sc ret io n to im

po se a m id dl e of th e ran ge se nt en ce. See Thu nd er, 55 3 F.3 d at 60 9;

Mer riv al , 52 1 F .3d at 8 91

.

Acco rd in gl y , th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

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

-4

-