1

The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the District of South Dakota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3432

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of South Dakota.

T.D.Q., *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 6, 2006

Filed: October 17, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In 2004 the district court1

 found T.D.Q. (then age 16) to be a juvenile

delinquent, pursuant to a written plea agreement in which T.D.Q. admitted guilt to one

count of first-degree burglary, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153, 5032, and S.D.

Codified Laws § 22-32-1. The district court sentenced him to 4 years probation, but

in January 2005, the court revoked probation after T.D.Q. violated several probation

conditions, and sentenced him to 3 months in prison and 24 months of juveniledelinquent supervision. While T.D.Q. was serving his juvenile-delinquent
-2-

supervision, the probation office petitioned to revoke supervision based on an alleged

violation of T.D.Q.’s supervision conditions. After a hearing at which T.D.Q.

admitted to the alleged violation, the court revoked juvenile-delinquent supervision

and imposed a new sentence of 18 months imprisonment. In doing so, the court

commented on the Chapter 7 Guidelines recommended revocation range, T.D.Q.’s

prior violations while on supervision, the failure of alternative punishments to

rehabilitate him, and the need to protect the community. T.D.Q. appeals, arguing that

the sentence is unreasonable because the district court did not recognize the relevant

sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

The revocation sentence was not unreasonable. See United States v. Tyson, 413

F.3d 824, 825 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (revocation sentences are reviewed for

unreasonableness in accordance with United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005)).

The sentence was within authorized limits, see 18 U.S.C. § 5037(c)(2)(A), (d)(5), and

the district court considered appropriate factors in imposing it, see United States v.

K.R.A., 337 F.3d 970, 974-75 (8th Cir. 2003) (Guidelines themselves do not apply

directly to juveniles; § 5037 is starting point for determining dispositional order in

juvenile matters); cf. United States v. Franklin, 397 F.3d 604, 606-07 (8th Cir. 2005)

(all that is required is evidence that court considered relevant matters, not that court

made specific findings on each § 3553(a) factor; 24-month revocation sentence, where

Guidelines recommended 8-14 months, was not abuse of discretion where transcript

showed court was aware of defendant’s multiple violations of supervised-release

conditions and of Guidelines range and statutory maximum); United States v. White

Face, 383 F.3d 733, 740 (8th Cir. 2004) (if sentencing judge references some

§ 3553(a) considerations, appellate court is ordinarily satisfied district court was

aware of entire contents of statute).

Accordingly, we affirm. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw on condition

that he show that he has informed T.D.Q. of the procedures for petitioning the
-3-

Supreme Court for certiorari, in compliance with Part V of our plan to implement the

Criminal Justice Act. 

______________________________