United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 12-2725

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Willie Earl Alexander

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul

____________

 Submitted: January 14, 2013

 Filed: March 15, 2013 

[Unpublished]

____________

Before WOLLMAN, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

While on supervised release as part of a federal sentence for conspiracy to

commit bank fraud, Willie Alexander sexually molested his girlfriend’s fourteen-yearold daughter. Alexander pleaded guilty in state court to criminal sexual conduct in the

second degree and was sentenced to 60 months’ imprisonment. The district
court1

found Alexander in violation of his release conditions and sentenced him to 36

months’ imprisonment to run consecutive to the state sentence. Alexander argues that

the district court’s imposition of a consecutive sentence was unreasonable.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3584, the district court has the discretion to order that a

revocation sentence be served concurrently or consecutively to a state court sentence

on the basis of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See 18 U.S.C. § 3584(b)

(sentencing court must consider § 3553(a) factors in determining whether to impose

consecutive sentence); United States v. Cotroneo, 89 F.3d 510, 512 (8th Cir. 1996)

(“The decision to impose a consecutive or concurrent sentence upon revocation of

supervised release is committed to the sound discretion of the district court.”). 

Moreover, consecutive sentences are called for under the Guidelines policy

statements. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f) (term of imprisonment imposed upon revocation

of supervised release shall be ordered to be served consecutively to any sentence of

imprisonment defendant is serving). 

Alexander argues that the district court’s imposition of a consecutive sentence

is substantively unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to effectuate the

sentencing goals of § 3553(a). Specifically, he contends that the district court gave

insufficient weight to his argument that the sex offender treatment he would receive

in state prison would decrease his likelihood of reoffending. At sentencing, the

district court noted its long history with Alexander and expressed doubt that he would

be responsive to treatment. The district court also cited the serious nature of

Alexander’s supervised release violation and stated, “You’re one of the few people

that I feel that should be incarcerated for the safety of the community.” The district

court’s statements demonstrate that it gave significant weight to several of the factors

under § 3553(a). See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1) and (a)(2)(B), (C) (court shall consider

1

The Honorable Michael J. Davis, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the District of Minnesota. 

-2-
defendant’s history and characteristics, need for sentence to deter defendant from

criminal conduct, and need for sentence to protect public from future crimes by

defendant). The district court was clearly aware of Alexander’s argument that the

treatment he would receive justified a lower sentence. Alexander’s disagreement with

the weight the district court gave his argument does not warrant reversal. See, e.g.,

United States v. Richart, 662 F.3d 1037, 1054 (8th Cir. 2011) (“Simply because the

district court weighed the relevant factors more heavily than Richart would prefer

does not mean the district court abused its discretion.”). The district court’s emphasis

on certain § 3553(a) factors falls within the “wide latitude” it has to “assign some

factors greater weight than others in determining an appropriate sentence[,]” United

States v. Bridges, 569 F.3d 374, 379 (8th Cir. 2009), and we find no abuse of

discretion in its decision to make Alexander’s sentence for violating supervised

release consecutive to his state court sentence.

The sentence is affirmed. 

_____________________________________

-3-