# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 8- 17 72

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

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.

Don na le C. Cla y , als o k no wn as L.A., al so kn own as Lav is h

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 Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa - Ced ar Ra pi ds

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Apri l 1 5, 2 01 9
Fi le d: Ju ne 26 , 20 19 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re SHEPHERD, MELLOY, and GRASZ, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

Don na le Cl ay ap pe al s th e 36 -m on th se nt en ce he rece iv ed fo ll owi ng rev oc at io n

of hi s su pe rv is ed rel eas e, arg ui ng th at hi s se nt en ce is su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le

. W e

ha ve juri sd ic ti on pu rs ua nt to 28 U.S.C. § 1 29 1 a nd no w affi rm

.I n 2 0 10

, Cl ay pl ed gu il ty to be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm, i n

vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. §§ 92 2( g) (1 ) an d 92 4( a)(2 ), an d di st rib ut in g co cai ne ba se aft er

a pr io r dr ug co nv ic ti on , in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( a)(1 ), (b )(1 )(C) a n d 8 5 1

. The di st ric t cou rt in crea se d Cl ay ’s ba se of fen se le ve l fo r th e fir earm of fen se by si x 1

le v e l s du e to hi s 20 06 co nv ic ti on in Io wa st at e co ur t fo r at te m pt in g to el ud e a la w

en fo rcem en t of

fic er— a fel on y cri m e of vi ol en ce un de r th e res id ua l cl au se of Uni te d

St at es Sen te nc in g Co m

m is si on , Gui de li ne s Man u a l

, § 4B 1.2 (a). It th en se nt en ced

hi m to 10 0 m on th s i m

pr is on m en t an d 6 y ears of s up erv is ed rel eas e.

In 20 11

, th e di st ric t cou rt red uc ed Cl ay ’s te rm of im pr is on m en t to 84 m on th s

fo ll owi ng ret ro act i v e am en dm en ts to th e crac k co cai ne gu id el in es an d Cl ay be ga n

se rv in g hi s te rm of su pe rv is ed rel eas e in Aug us t 20 15

. Bet ween Nov em be r 20 15 an d

Ja nu ary 20 16

, Cl ay vi ol at ed th e te rm s of hi s su pe rv i se d rel eas e by fai li ng to

pa rti c i p a t e i n or de red su bs ta nc e ab us e te st in g, us in g dr ug s, an d fai li ng to fo ll ow a

pr ob at io n of

fic er’s di rect io n. Bas ed on th es e vi ol at io ns , th e di st ric t co ur t rev ok ed hi s

su pe rv is ed rel eas e in Feb ru ary 2 01 6 a n d s en te nc ed hi m to an ad di ti on al 10 m on th s

im pr is on m en t.

Cl ay be ga n hi s se co nd te rm of su pe rv is ed rel eas e i n Nov em be r 20 16

. He

en te red a res id en ti al reen try faci li ty an d, wit hi n two week s, vi ol at ed m ul ti pl e faci li ty

ru le s be fo re fin al ly ab sc on di ng f r o m su pe rv is io n. In Feb ru ary 20 18

, Cl ay was

arre st ed aft er he pr ov id ed a fal se na m e an d da te of bi rt h t o a po li ce of fic er in Ro ck

Is la nd

, Ill in oi s. Arres ti ng of fic ers fo un d th at he po ss es se d ap pr ox im at el y th ree gr am s

of m ari juan a. Cl ay pl ed gu il ty to ob st ru ct in g id en ti fic at io n in Ill in oi s st at e co ur t an d

was su bs eq ue nt ly tra ns ferr ed to fed eral cu st od y on a pe nd in g rev oc at i o n pe ti ti on

. W hi le in cu st od y , he refu se d to su bm it to dr ug te st in g an d to ld a pr ob at io n of fic e

The Hon or ab le Lin da R. Rea de

, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Nor th ern 1

Dis tri ct of I owa

.

-2

-em

pl oyee th at he refu se d to “ do [] pr ob at io n” an d th at

, on ce rel eas ed fro m pr is on , he

wou ld be “ ta ki ng [hi m se lf] ba ck off pro ba ti on .”

At th e rev oc at io n he ari ng , Cl ay pl ed gu il ty to fo ur te en vi ol at io ns of su pe rv is ed

rel eas e, in cl ud in g th ree in st an ces of fai li ng to co m pl y wit h res id en ti al reen try cen te r

ru le s, t w o i n s t a n c es of fai li ng to rep or t to th e pr ob at io n of fic e, two in st an ces of

fai li ng to pa rti ci pa te in su bs ta nc e ab us e te st in g or tre at m en t, two in st an ces of tra ve l

wit ho ut pe rm is si on , two in st an ces of po ss es si ng a co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e, two ne w la w
vi ol at io ns st em m in g fro m hi s Ill in oi s arre s t

, a n d o n e in st an ce of fai li ng to fo ll ow a

pr ob at io n of

fic er’s in st ru c t io ns

. Cl ay ’s Un it ed St at es Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s ran ge

was 18 to 24 m on th s im pr is o n men t

. The go ve rn m en t, ho wev er, req ue st ed th e

st at ut or y m ax im

um of 36 m on th s im

pr is on m en t, with no te rm of s up erv is ed rel eas e

to fol lo w. Clay requ es te d a sen te nc e o f 24 m on th s i m pr is on m en t an d a dm it te d t ha t

he ha s a h is to ry

of f ai li ng to co m

pl y wit h s up erv is io n re qu ire m en ts

.

The di st ric t co ur t co ns id ered th e 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 ( a ) f a ct or s, pa rti cu la rly

n o t i ng Cl ay ’s hi st or y of as sa ul ti ve be ha vi or , pr io r no nc om pl ia nc e wit h su pe rv i s e d

rel ea s e , a nd ris k of reci di vi sm , be fo re se nt en ci ng Cl ay to 36 m on th s im pr is on m en t

wit h no te rm o f su pe rv is ed rel eas e to fo ll ow. Cl ay no w ap pe al s, arg ui ng th at th e
di st ric t co ur t im

po se d a su bs ta nt iv el y -u nr eas on ab le se nt en ce by fai li ng to pr o p erl y

co ns id er a sp eci fic § 35 53 (a) fact or an d by im po si ng an ab ov e-Gu id el in es se nt en ce.

W e rev ie w th e su bs ta nt iv e reas on a b l e n e s s of a se nt en ce fo r an ab us e of

di sc ret io n. Un it ed Sta te s v . Feem st er, 5 72 F.3 d 45 5, 4 61 (8t h C ir. 2 00 9) (en ba nc ).

A di st ric t co ur t ab us es it s se nt en ci ng di sc ret io n “ if it fai ls to co ns id er a rel ev an t fact or

th at sh ou ld ha ve rece iv ed si gn ifi can t weig ht

, gi ve s si gn ifi can t weig ht to an im pr op er

or irr el ev an t fact or , or co ns id ers on ly th e ap pr op ria te fact or s bu t co m m it s a cl ear erro r

of jud g men t i n weig hi ng th os e fact or s.” Uni te d St at es v. W at so n, 48 0 F.3 d 11 75

, 11 77 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ). The di st ric t co ur t ne ed no t ex pl ic it ly di sc us s ev ery fact or an d

ev ery arg um en t, bu t m

us t “ se t fo rth en ou gh to sa ti sf y th e ap pe ll at e co ur t th at [it ] ha s

-3

-co ns id ered th e pa rti es ’ arg um en ts a nd ha s a reas on ed ba si s fo r ex erci si ng [it s] o wn

le ga l d eci si on m ak in g a ut ho rit y .” Rit a v . Uni te d S ta te s, 5 51 U.S. 33 8, 3 56 (20 07 ).

Cl ay arg ue s th at th e di st ric t c o u r t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n by fa il in g to pr op erl y

co ns id er a rel ev an t § 35 53 (a) fact or —t he na tu re an d ci rcu m st an ces of th e of fen se

. Sp eci fic al ly, he al le ge s th at

, aft er am en dm en ts to th e Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s, hi s pr io r

co nv ic ti on fo r at te m

pt in g to el ud e a p ol ic e o ffi cer n o l on ge r m eet s t he de fin it io n of

“ cri m e of vi ol en ce.” Had th e am en dm en ts be en in effe ct at th e ti m e of h i s o r ig in al

se nt en ci ng , Cl ay co nt en ds th at th e ba se of fen se le ve l of hi s fel on -in -p os se ss io n

of fen ce wou ld ha v e b e e n 14

, rat he r th an 20

. Thu s, he arg ue s th at th e Gui de li ne s

am en dm en ts red uc ed th e se ve rit y of hi s un de rlyin g felo n- in -p os se ss io n offe ns e an d

th at th e di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld ha ve ex pl ic it ly ta ke n th is in to acco un t whe n co ns id eri ng

th e n at ur e an d c irc um st an ces of t he off en se

.

Howev er, th e di st ric t co ur t co ns id ered th e na tu re an d ci rcu m st an ces of Cl ay ’s

of fen se s be cau se it st at ed th at it co ns id ered al l th e § 35 53 (a) f a c t or s an d ex pl ic it ly

ap pl ie d se ve ral of th os e fact or s

. S e e U n i t ed St at es v. Jo ne s, 50 9 F.3 d 91 1, 91 5- 16
(8 th Ci r. 20 07 ). It al so refe ren ced th e 16 -m on th se nt en ci ng red uc ti on it ga ve Cl ay in

20 11

, in di cat in g th at it sp eci fic al ly co ns id ered Cl ay ’s of fen s e hi st or y

. The di st ric t

co ur t ex pl ic it ly ch os e to im po se an ab ov e-Gu id el in es -ran ge se nt en ce ba se d on Cl ay ’s

rep eat ed fai lu re to co m

pl y wit h su pe rv is ed rel eas e te rm s, hi s hi gh ris k of reci di vi sm ,

an d hi s own ad m is si on th at he was “ no t pr ob at io na bl e” an d wou ld “ ta k[ e hi m se lf] of f

pr ob at io n” if rel eas ed fro m pr is on

. See Uni te d St at es v. Co tt on , 39 9 F.3 d 91 3, 91 6-

17 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (u ph ol di ng an ab ov e-Gu id el in es se nt en ce ba se d on th e de fen da nt ’s

rep eat ed vi ol at io ns of su pe rv is ed rel eas e, ris k of reci di vi sm , an d rece ip t of an earl ie r

se nt en ce red uc ti on ). Bec au se th e di st ric t co ur t ba se d it s de ci si on on rel ev an t
§ 35 53 (a) fact or s an d a de qu at el y ex pl ai ne d th at de ci si on , it di d no t im po se a

su bs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le sen te nc e.

W e aff irm th e d is tri ct co ur t’s jud gm en t.

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

-4

-