United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-2721

___________

*

United States of America, *

* 

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * District of Nebraska.

*

Michael Karas, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 14, 2012

Filed: June 1, 2012

___________

Before MURPHY, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. 

___________

PER CURIAM.

Michael Karas's supervised release was revoked by the district court and he 1

was sentenced to one year and one day in prison after he admitted to violating his

conditions of supervised release by using methamphetamine and failing to show up

for required drug testing. Karas appeals, arguing that the district court failed to

consider the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and imposed an excessive

sentence. We affirm. 

The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, United States District Judge for the

1

District of Nebraska. 
Karas had pled guilty in 2003 to conspiracy to distribute more than 500 grams

of methamphetamine and possession of a firearm during a drug trafficking offense in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). He was sentenced to 180

months in prison, but that was later reduced to 90 months on a motion by the

government. He was also sentenced to five years of supervised release for each

offense,to run concurrently. Two mandatory conditions of Karas's supervised release

were that he refrain from using controlled substances and that he submit to drug

testing. 

Karas began his term of supervised release on July 20, 2009. In November

2010 his probation officer filed a petition for a warrant or summons because he had

allegedly failed to notify the officer about a change in his address, had used

methamphetamine, and had failed to attend scheduled drug tests. At a hearing in

front of the district court, Karas admitted to using methamphetamine and to missing

the scheduled drug tests. The district court postponed sentencing and released Karas

so he could receive treatment at a halfway house. 

In February 2011 the probation officer filed a second petition for a warrant or

summons because Karas had allegedly left the rehabilitation center without

permission, committed a burglary, and failed to attend scheduled drug testing. After

receiving a sentence of 7 to 10 yearsin state court for felony charges, Karas appeared

before the federal district court for sentencing. The government withdrew its second

petition against Karas, and instead asked the district court to sentence him based on

his prior admissions that he had violated the terms of his supervised release by using

methamphetamine and missing scheduled drug tests. The adjusted report and

recommendation stated that the advisory guideline range for Taylor's admitted

violations was 6 to 12 months in prison. U.S.S.G. §§ 7B1.4(a), 7B1.1(b). 

Karas requested a sentence at the low end of the guideline range without any

supervised release because he had been diagnosed with bipolar disease and he had

already received a substantial sentence in state prison. The government agreed with

-2-
a recommendation by the probation officer that Taylor be sentenced to 24 months in

prison and further stated that it did not believe that any additional supervision would

be useful. The district court determined that a prison sentence was necessary since

Karas had absconded and committed a crime after he had earlier been permitted to

live in a halfway house. Karas was sentenced to one year and one day, to run

consecutively to his state sentence. No supervised release was ordered. 

Karas appeals, arguing that the district court failed to consider the sentencing

factors under § 3553(a) and imposed an excessive sentence. He contends that his

sentence was unreasonable because his violations were not the most serious types of

offenses listed under Chapter 7 of the sentencing guidelines. See U.S.S.G. §

7B1.1(a). We review a revocation sentence for procedural soundness and we review

its substantive reasonableness under "the same 'reasonableness' standard that applies

to initial sentencing proceedings." United States v. Benton, 627 F.3d 1051, 1055 (8th

Cir. 2010) (quoting United States v. Merrival, 521 F.3d 889, 890 (8th Cir. 2008)). 

Since Karas did not object to the adequacy of the district court's consideration

of the § 3553(a) factors at his sentencing hearing, our review is for plain error.

Benton, 627 F.3d at 1055. The district court did not err in imposing a sentence of one

year and one day because it reflected an understanding of the nature and

circumstances of Karas's violations, his history, and the seriousness of his offense. 

See United States v. Petreikis, 551 F.3d 822, 825 (8th Cir. 2009). The district court

listened to Karas's counsel discuss his mental illness and state court sentence. It then

expressed concern that Karas had absconded and committed a crime after the court

had postponed his initial sentencing so that he could receive treatment at a halfway

house. While the district court did not specifically reference the § 3553(a) factors,

its statements show that it was aware of the statute and adequately considered it in

determining the appropriate sentence. See United States v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107,

1110–11 (8th Cir. 2008).

-3-
Karas also suggests that the district court imposed a sentence that was "clearly

excessive" because it wasto be served consecutively to his state prison sentence. The

substantive reasonableness of a sentence is reviewed under a deferential abuse of

discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The decision to

impose a consecutive sentence is reviewed for reasonableness. See United States v.

McDonald, 521 F.3d 975, 980 (8th Cir. 2008). The district court considered the

appropriate factors, adequately explained its reasoning, see Benton, 627 F.3d at 1056,

and sentenced Karas well below the statutory maximum sentence. 18 U.S.C. §

3583(e)(3). We therefore conclude that the district court acted reasonably in ordering

Karas's sentence to be served consecutively to his state court sentence. 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 

______________________________

-4-