United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 22-2229

___________________________ 

United States of America

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Christopher Plenty Chief

 Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of South Dakota - Northern

____________ 

Submitted: November 14, 2022

Filed: February 15, 2023

[Unpublished]

____________ 

Before BENTON, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Christopher Plenty Chief pleaded guilty to one count of assault resulting in 

substantial bodily injury to a spouse or intimate partner, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 113(a)(7), and was sentenced to 24 months in prison and a three-year term of 

supervised release. In 2019, Plenty Chief’s term of supervised release was revoked 

after he violated the conditions of release. His supervision was revoked again in 
-2-

2021. On June 6, 2022, his supervised release was revoked for a third time, and the 

district court1 imposed a sentence of 24-months’ imprisonment with no supervision 

to follow. Plenty Chief appeals.

At the hearing for his third revocation, Plenty Chief admitted to two violations 

of his supervised release conditions: unlawful use of a controlled substance and 

possession of a dangerous weapon, both Grade C violations. The advisory 

Guidelines range was 8–14 months, and the parties jointly recommended a sentence 

of 14-months’ imprisonment, with no supervision to follow. Plenty Chief argues 

that the district court’s decision to disregard this recommendation and impose a 

sentence above the advisory range resulted in a substantively unreasonable sentence. 

We review revocation sentences under the same reasonableness standard 

applied to initial sentences. United States v. Wilkins, 909 F.3d 915, 917 (8th Cir. 

2018) (“[T]he substantive reasonableness of a revocation sentence is reviewed 

‘under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.’” (citation omitted)). “A district 

court abuses its discretion and imposes an unreasonable sentence when it fails to 

consider a relevant and significant factor, gives significant weight to an irrelevant or 

improper factor, or considers the appropriate factors but commits a clear error of 

judgment in weighing those factors.” Id. (alteration and citation omitted).

Plenty Chief first argues that the district court gave too much weight to his 

prior criminal record and the conduct underlying his supervised release violations. 

Specifically, he contends that because criminal history and severity of conduct are 

already considered in determining the advisory Guidelines range, see USSG 

§§ 7B1.1, 7B1.4, it was error for the district court to rely on those factors in varying

his sentence upward. But Plenty Chief’s argument overlooks the fact that the district 

court primarily relied on other factors in reaching its sentencing decision. The 

district court emphasized that Plenty Chief had already been sentenced to a term of

1

The Honorable Charles B. Kornmann, United States District Judge for the 

District of South Dakota.
-3-

14 months’ imprisonment after each of his first two revocations. Those sentences 

had not, in the district court’s view, accomplished the goal of helping Plenty Chief 

to “recover . . . [from] criminal conduct” and avoid “further trouble.” To impose the 

same sentence yet again would fail to reflect Plenty Chief’s “course of escalating 

criminal conduct.” The district court also noted, without objection, that Plenty Chief 

had previously received a “tremendous benefit” from his original plea agreement, 

which lowered the advisory Guidelines range applicable to his offense of conviction. 

See USSG § 7B1.4, comment. (n.4). These are all permissible factors for the district 

court to consider, 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), and the record does not support the claim

that the district court relied too heavily on factors already taken into account by the 

Guidelines. 

Plenty Chief next argues that the district court failed to give sufficient weight 

to the positive steps he had taken toward compliance with the terms of his 

supervision, including moving to a new city, finding new friends, and scheduling a 

chemical dependency evaluation. We see no error in the district court’s decision not 

to give greater weight to these efforts, particularly considering the difficulties Plenty 

Chief had with supervision. The district court stated it could see nothing that Plenty 

Chief had done to “work with [his] probation officer to help turn his life around.” 

The district court has wide latitude in weighing the relevant factors when imposing 

a sentence, see United States v. Barber, 4 F.4th 689, 692 (8th Cir. 2021), and we 

discern no abuse of discretion in how the district court did so in this case. 

The judgment of the district court is affirmed. 

______________________________