# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 7- 23 89

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
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.

Ran dy Scot t M il an d

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 M in ne so ta

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: May 18, 2 01 8 Fi le d: Aug us t 2 0, 2 01 8 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re SHEPHERD, KELLY, an d GRAS Z, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

In Ju ne 20 17 , t he di s t r i c t co ur t se nt en ced Ran dy Sc ot t Mi la nd to 90 m on th s 1
of im pr is on m en t, fo ll owe d b y

th ree y ears of su pe rv is ed rel eas e, ba se d o n h is gu il ty

The Hon or ab le W il he lm in a M. W rig ht
, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1 Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta

.pl ea to m ai l frau d an d m on ey la un de rin g. Mi la nd arg ue s on ap pe al th at th e se nt en ce

is su bs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le

.

W e rev ie w a se nt en ce fo r su bs ta nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss in rel at io n to th e ad vi so ry

se nt en ci ng ran ge fro m th e U

. S. Se ntenci ng Gui de li ne s Man ua l (th e “ Gui de li ne s” ) an d
th e fact or s fro m 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a). Se e Uni te d St at es v. Fun ke
, 84 6 F.3 d 99 8, 10 00 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ). “ A di st ric t co ur t ab us es it s di sc ret io n an d im po se s an un reas on ab le

se nt en ce whe n it fai ls to co ns id er a rel ev an t and si gn ifi can t fact or , gi ve s si gn ifi can t weig ht to an irr el ev an t or im pr op er fact or , or co ns id ers th e ap pr op ria te f a c t o r s bu t

co m m it s a cl ear erro r of jud gm en t in weig hi ng th os e fact or s.” Uni te d St at es v. Min er , 54 4 F.3 d 93 0, 93 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ). W e typic al ly acco rd a pr es um pt io n of

reas on ab le ne ss whe n th e se nt en ce is wit hi n th e Gui de li ne s ran ge

. Se e Fu n k e , 8 4 6
F.3 d a t 1 00 0.

Co nt rary to Mi la nd ’s arg um en t, th e di st ric t co ur t co ns id ered an d pr op erl y weig he d h is hi st or y an d ch arac te ris ti cs whe n im po si ng a Gui de li ne s se nt en ce. The
di st ric t co ur t ac k n owl ed ge d th at Mi la nd “ ex pe rie nc ed a di ffi cu lt ch il dh oo d” an d

“ lac k[ ed ] [a ] sol id fa

m ily fo un da ti on .” The di st ric t co ur t al so ack no wled ge d Mi la nd ’s
he al th co nd it io n. Th e di st ric t co ur t weig he d th es e fact s ag ai ns t th ree ot he r fact s: (1 ) he is well ed uc at ed
, ha vi ng ob ta in ed a do ct or at e in ch iro pr act ic m ed ic in e; (2 ) he
di d no t co m

m it fin an ci al frau d ou t of ne ces si ty; an d (3 ) he ha s de m on st rat ed a pa tt ern of u s i n g c h a nc es to reb ui ld hi s li fe as op po rtu ni ti es to de frau d ot he rs ag ai n. The
di st ric t co ur t al so no te d th at th ere was no ev id en ce in th e reco rd th at th e Uni te d St at es Bu reau of Pri so ns wou ld be un ab le to acco m m od at e hi s he al th co nd it io ns

. In ad di ti on
to weig hi ng th es e co nf

li ct in g fact or s, th e di st ric t co ur t co rrec tl y d i s mi s se d an y
sugg es tio n tha t Mila nd ’s cri m in al hi st or y was ov ers ta te d. N otw ith sta ndi ng suc ce ssf

ul

tre at m en t of hi s a l c o h o l ab us e, he ha s a hi st or y of reci di vi sm ev id en t in rep eat ed
cri m es in vo lv in g frau d. As th e di s t r i ct co ur t ex pl ai ne d, Mi la nd ’s reci di vi sm is so

se ve re th at he rece iv ed pu bl ic fu nd s to reb ui ld hi s pr act ic e aft er hi s la st frau d cri m e,

an d he st il l sq ua nd ered th at op po rtu ni ty by ret ur ni ng to frau d. Th e d i s t ric t co ur t’s

-2

-se nt en ce is su pp or te d by th e fact s th e di st ric t co ur t ci te d, an d Mi la nd ha s no t

ov erco m e th e p res um

pt io n o f rea so na bl en es s.

Mi la nd arg ue s in hi s rep ly br ie f th at hi s su pe rv is ed rel eas e te rm an d co nd it io ns

are no t su pp or te d by th e di st ric t co ur t’s an al y si s. W e fin d no in di cat io n in th e reco rd
th at he req ue st ed a pa rti cu la r su pe rv is ed rel eas e te rm or ob jecte d to an y pa rti cu la r

co nd it io n, a n d e v e n i f he ha d, th e sa m e fact s th at su pp or t a Gui de li ne s pr is on te rm he re wou ld al so su pp or t a th ree- y ear su pe rv is ed rel eas e te rm wit h th e co nd it io ns th e di st ric t co ur t im

po se d as wit hi n th e di st ric t co ur t’s di sc ret io n. To th e ex te nt Mi la nd ’s

rep ly br ie f ca n b e c o n s t ru ed as rai si ng ne w arg um en ts ab ou t th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s be y on d th os e arg um en ts al read y ad dr es se d, we de cl in e to ad dr e s s t h em

. Se e Jo ne s

v. Aetn a Li

fe In s. Co

. , 85 6 F.3 d 54 1, 54 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ) (“ Thi s co ur t ge ne ral ly do es

no t co ns id er ar gu m en ts rai se d fo r th e fi rs t t im e in a rep ly brie f . . . .”).

W e aff irm.

__

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

-3

-