# 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- 37 56

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ 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.
Raym on Orte ga

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 Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - Sp rin gf ie ld

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Aug us t 2 0, 2 01 4 Fi le d: Aug us t 2 6, 2 01 4 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re MUR PHY, BOW MAN, an d B ENTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
PER CURI AM.

In th is ap pe al fo ll owi ng rev oc at io n of hi s su pe rv is ed rel eas e, Raym on Orte ga ch al le ng es hi s rev oc at io n se nt en ce an d rai se s r el at ed arg um en ts

. His co un se l ha s

m ov ed to wit hd raw. Hav in g care fu ll y rev ie wed th e reco rd be fo re us an d t hearg um en ts fo r rev ers al
, an d fo r th e reas on s di sc us se d be lo w, we affi rm th e jud gm en t

of th e d is tri ct co ur t. 1

Orte ga arg ue s th at th e rev oc at io n se nt en ce is u n r e a so na bl e an d ex ceed s th e st at ut or y m ax im

um

. W e rev ie w a rev oc at io n se nt en ce fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n, se e Uni te d St at es v. Mi ll er, 55 7 F.3 d 91 0, 91 5- 16 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ), an d t h e le ga li ty of a

rev oc at io n se nt en ce de no vo , se e Uni te d St at es v. Herg ot t, 56 2 F.3 d 96 8, 97 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). The di st ric t co ur t i m po se d c on cu rren t re vo cat io n s en te nc es of 3 3 m on th s in
pr is on , an d no ad di ti on al su pe rv is ed rel eas e, up on rev o k i n g t he su pe rv is ed rel eas e th at Orte ga was se rv in g fo r fiv e fel on y co nv ic ti on s. The rev oc at io n se nt en ces on fo ur of th e co un ts were wit hi n th e st at ut or y li m it s ap pl ic ab le to rev oc at io n se nt en ces un de r 18 U.S.C. § 35 83 (e)( 3) ; th e se nt en ces were no t su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le ; an d th ey

we r e ad eq ua te ly ex pl ai ne d. See Uni te d St at es v. Thu nd er, 55 3 F.3 d 60 5, 60 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (co ur t ne ed no t m ech an ic al ly li st ev ery § 35 53 (a) co ns id erat io n whe n

se nt en ci ng up on rev oc at io n o f su pe rv is ed rel eas e). And co nt rary to h is co nt en ti on , Orte ga was no t ent it le d to cred it fo r ti m e sp en t in a res id en ti al reen try cen te r as pa rt of hi s su pe rv is ed rel eas e. S e e U

. S .S.G. § 7B 1.5 (b ) (u po n rev oc at io n of su pe rv is ed rel eas e, no cred it is gi ve n to ward i mp r i so nm en t or de red fo r ti m e pr ev io us ly s erv ed

on po st -rel eas e su pe rv is io n)

.

One of th e fel on ie s fo r whi ch Orte ga was se rv in g su pe rv is ed rel eas e is a Cl as s C fel on y , f

or whi ch a de fen da nt m ay no t b e req ui red to ser ve a rev oc at io n s en te nc e of m or e th an two y ears in pr is on , se e 18 U.S.C. § 35 83 (e)( 3)
, bu t Orte ga di d no t lo dg e

an y ob jecti on be lo w, an d hi s su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s are no t affe ct ed
, be cau se he pr op erl y

rece iv ed co nc ur ren t rev oc at io n se nt en ces of 33 m on th s in pr is on on t h e o t h er fo ur

co un ts . Cf. Uni te d S ta te s v . Bos sa ny, 678 F.3d 60 3, 6 06 -0 7 (8 th Cir

. 20 12 ) (wh ere de fen d an t co nt en de d fo r fir st ti m e on ap pe al th at se nt en ce fo r co ns pi racy of fen se

The Hon or ab le Gary A. Fen ne r, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e W es te rn 1 Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

-2

-ex ceed ed st at ut or y max i mu m, rev ie w was fo r pl ai n erro r, un de r whi ch erro r is

co rrec te d o nl y

if i t i s pl ai n, affe ct s su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s, an d se rio us ly aff ect s fa irn es s, in te gr it y , or pu bl ic rep ut at io n of jud ic ia l pr oc eed in gs ; e r r o r was pl ai n bu t di d no t affe ct de fen da nt ’s s u b st an ti al rig ht s be cau se co ur t im po se d id en ti cal
, st at ut or il y

au th or iz ed sen te nc e fo r m on ey -la un de rin g o ffen se ).

Nex t, we no te th at Orte ga rai se s va rio us ch al le ng es to hi s or ig in al co nv ic ti on s

an d se nt en ces , bu t a cri m in al de fen da nt m ay no t co ll at eral ly at ta ck th e va li di ty of hi s

un de rlyin g co nv ic ti on s or se nt en ces in an ap pe al fro m a se nt e n c e i mp o se d up on

rev oc at io n of su pe rv is ed rel eas e. See Mi ll er, 55 7 F.3 d at 91 3. Orte ga al so co m pl ai ns ab ou t th e effe ct iv en es s of th e le ga l as si st an ce th at he rece iv ed in th es e rev oc a ti on pr oc eed in gs , bu t th e is su e was no t de ve lo pe d be lo w, an d ge ne ral ly in effe ct iv eas si s t a n c e c la im s are m or e ap pr op ria te ly co ns id ered in a 28 U.S.C. § 22 55
pr oc eed in g. S ee Uni te d St at es v. McAd or y , 50 1 F.3 d 86 8, 87 2- 73 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ). Fi na ll y , Orte ga di rect s ou r at te nt io n to up co m in g Gui de li ne s am en dm en t s t h a t he be li ev es wil l lo wer hi s ba se of fen se le ve l, bu t th os e am en dm en ts do no t he lp hi m in th is ap pe al

.

Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm th e jud gm en t of th e di st ric t co ur t, an d we gr an t

co un se l’s m ot io n to wit hd raw, su bjec t to co un se l in fo rm in g ap pe ll an t ab ou t
pr oc ed ur es for see ki ng reh eari ng or f il in g a pe ti ti on for cert io rari

.

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

-3

-