# 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- 29 07

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ 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.
Ton y Ant ho ny Day , als o k no wn as “ 50 Cen t” , als o k no wn as “ 50 ”,

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 Dis tri ct of S ou th Dako ta - Sio ux Fal ls

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Marc h 1 0, 2 01 4 Fil ed : J ul y

9, 2 01 4 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re COLLOTON, SHEPHERD, and KELLY , Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.

Ton y Ant ho ny Day ap pe al s a se nt en ce imp os ed by th e di st ric t co ur t aft er 1

rev oc at io n o f hi s s up erv is ed rel eas e. W e aff irm.

The Hon or ab le Karen E. Sch rei er, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1 of So ut h Dak ot a.In Nov em be r 20 10 , Day pl ead ed gu il ty to co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e a co nt ro ll ed

su bs ta nc e. The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced Day to 12 0 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t, fo ll owe d by fiv e y ears of su pe rv is ed rel eas e. In li gh t of the Fai r Sen te nc in g Act of 2 01 0 a nd Dor se y v. Uni te d St at es , 13 2 S. Ct

. 23 21 (2 01 2) , th e di st ric t co ur t la te r red uc ed Day ’s

se nt en ce t o t im e se rv ed an d t hr ee years o f su pe rv is ed rel eas e.
Day be ga n hi s te rm of su pe r v i s e d rel eas e on Sep te m be r 7, 20 12

. He im m ed ia te ly co m

pl ai ne d ab ou t hi s pl acement at a res id en ti al tre at m en t cen te r an d req ue st ed tra ns fer to an ot he r faci li ty. Day al so co m pl ai ne d abo ut hi s ass ig nm en t to t h e c o d e-a- ph on e dr ug -te st in g pr og ram

. To acco m m od at e Day , au th or it ie s m ov ed hi m to a di ffer en t faci li ty an d ch an ge d hi s te st in g pr ot oc ol to a swe at pa tc h sy st em

. Onl y two w e ek s la te r, ho wev er, Day co m pl ai ne d ab ou t th e pa tc h as well , an d

au th or it ie s re tu rn ed hi m

to th e co de -a-p ho ne syste m

.
Day als o p ro m

pt ly fail ed to co m

pl y wit h c ert ai n c on di ti on s o f hi s s up erv is ed rel eas e. W he n th e in f

r a c ti on s co nt in ue d, th e pr ob at io n of fic e fil ed a pe ti ti on to

rev ok e Day ’s su pe rv is ed rel eas e in Ju ne 20 13

. The go ve rn m en t ev en tu al ly so ug ht to pr oc eed on th ree al le ge d vi ol at io ns of Day ’s c on di ti on s: th at he (1 ) tra ve le d o ut of st at e wit ho ut pe rm is si on , (2 ) co ns um ed al co ho l, an d (3 ) fai le d to no ti fy hi s pr ob at io n of fic er o f ch an ge s i n h is li vi ng si tu at io n.

At a rev oc at io n he ari ng , Day ad m it te d th at he le ft So ut h Dak ot a wit ho ut pe rm is si on , co ns um ed al co ho l, an d fai le d to no ti fy hi s pr ob at io n of fic er te n da y s pr io r to hi s ch an gi ng hi s res id en ce. In li gh t of Day ’s ad m it te d vi ol at io ns , th e di st ric t co ur t

rev ok ed Day ’s su pe rv is ed rel eas e.

Bas ed on th e Grad e C vio la ti on s o f su pe rv is ed rel eas e an d a cri m in al -h is to ry
c a t e g o r y of VI, Day ’s ad vi so ry gu id el in e ran ge was ei gh t to fo ur te en m on th s ’ im pr is on m en t. Se e USSG § 7B 1.4 (a). Ci ti ng Day ’s refu sa l to li st en to hi s pr ob at io n of fic er, rep eat ed co m

pl ai nt s ab ou t hi s li vi ng si tu at io n an d dr ug te st in g arra ng em en ts ,

-2

-f

a i l u r e to in fo rm hi s pr ob at io n of fic er th at he was le av in g th e st at e, an d on go i n g al co ho l us e, th e d is tri ct co ur t vari ed up ward fro m th e ad vi so ry ran ge an d sen te nc ed Day to se rv e twen ty-eig h t m on th s in pr is on , to be fo ll owe d by two y ears of

su pe rv is ed rel eas e.

W e rev ie w a se nt en ce im

po se d aft er rev oc at io n of su pe rv is ed rel eas e fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n. Uni te d St at es v. Th un de r , 55 3 F.3 d 60 5, 60 7 (8 th Ci r

. 2 00 9)

. Day arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n by gi vi ng in su ffi ci en t jus ti fic at io n fo r it s im

po si ti on of a se nt en ce ab ov e th e ad vi so ry ran ge , b u t th e nu m be r an d

se rio us ne ss of th e vi ol at io ns reco un te d ab ov e are a reas on ab le ba si s fo r th e se nt en ce. Se e, e.g

. , Uni te d S ta te s v. La ri so n , 43 2 F .3d 92 1, 9 23 -2 4 (8 th Cir . 20 06 ).

Day al so arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t ga ve to o m uc h weig ht to hi s al co ho l us e
an d th e pr ob at io n of

fic e’s di ffi cu lt y in su pe rv is in g hi m

. Bu t th e co ur t is req ui red to

co ns id er th e hi st or y an d ch arac te ris ti cs of th e de fen da nt , 18 U.S.C. § 35 83 (c) (ci ti ng 18 U

. S

. C. § 35 53 (a)( 1) ), an d un de r th e de fere nt ia l ab us e-o f-d is cret io n st an da rd de sc rib ed in Gal l v. Uni te d St at es , 55 2 U.S. 38 , 51 (2 00 7) , th e d i st ric t co ur t “ ha s
su bs ta nt ia l la ti tu de to de te rm in e ho w m uc h weig ht to gi ve th e va rio us fact or s un de r § 35 53 (a).” Uni te d St at es v. Rue la s- Men de z , 55 6 F.3 d 65 5, 65 7 (8 th C i r

. 2 0 0 9)

. Alt ho ug h al co ho l us e an d in co rri gi bi li ty were ba se s fo r th e rev oc at io n, th e co ur t is

no t fo rb id de n to co ns id er th os e fact or s in de ci di ng whe th er to va ry fro m th e ad vi so ry
ran ge

. Uni te d S ta te s v. Fr an ik , 68 7 F .3d 98 8, 9 91 (8t h C ir. 2 01 2)

.
Day al so co m

pl ai ns th at th e di st ric t cou rt abu se d it s di sc ret io n by im po si ng a
ne w te rm of su pe rv i s e d r e l eas e to fo ll ow th e twen ty-eig ht -m on th te rm of in carc erat io n. W e di sa gr ee th at Day ’s in ab il it y to co m pl y wit h su pe rv is io n aft er hi s fir st rel eas e fro m cu st od y m ean s th at th e di st ric t co ur t mu st ex em pt hi m fro m
su pe rv is ed rel eas e on th e se co nd go -ro un d. Se e 18 U.S.C. § 35 83 (h ). The ne w te rm of su pe rv is ed rel e a s e reas on ab ly pr om ot es th e st at ut or y pu rp os es of sp eci fic

-3

-d et erre nc e an d pr ot ect io n of th e pu bl ic

. Se e 18 U.S.C. § 35 83 (c) (ci t i n g

18 U.S.C. §§ 35 53 (a)( 2) (B), 3 55 3( a)(2 )(C) ).

The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

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

-4

-