A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l yt o honort he part i es ’ r eques tfora dec i s i on on the br i efs w i thoutor al a rg u m e n t. See F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (f); 10 th C ir . R . 3 4 . 1 (G ). T h e c ase is th ere fo re or der ed s ubm i t t ed w i t houtor al ar gum ent . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t ent w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 .1 . 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Ju n e25,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

Pl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee, N o. 06- 6313 v. ( W . D . O kl ahoma) RO N D A LE L EO N D O G A N S,

D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. ( D . C . N o . 0 2 - C R - 1 5 1 - M)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e LU CE RO , HA RTZ , and GORS UCH , C i rcui tJudg es. R ondal e Leon D ogans pl eade d gui l tyi n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tfor th e W e s te rn D is tr ic t o f O k la h o m a to a c h a rg e o f a c c e s s -d e v ic e f

ra u d , s ee 18 U . S . C . § 1 02 9(a) , and w as sent enced on June 4 , 20 03 , t o 1 5 m on ths’ i m pr i s onm entfol l ow ed bythr ee y ear s ’ s upervi s ed r el eas e. H e w as r el eas ed fr om p r i s o n o n J u l y1 , 2 0 0 4 , a n d b e g a n h i s t e r m o f s u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e . On Sept ember12, 2006, t he pr obat i on offi ce f i l ed a pe t i t i on al l egi ng s ever al-2-

vi ol at i ons of hi s condi t i ons of r el eas e. A tt he hea r i ng on Sept ember20, t he di s t r i ctcourtfound thatM r . D ogans had vi ol at ed the t erm s of hi s s upervi s ed rel ease, revoke d h i s t erm of sup ervi si on , and sent enced him t o tw o y ears ’ im p ri s o n m e n t, th e s ta tu to ry m a x im u m . See 18 U . S. C . § 3583( e) ( 3) ( m axi m um t erm forC l as s D fel oni es ) ; § 3559( a) ( 4) ( defi ni t i on of C l as s D fel ony ) . O n appea l M r . D ogans ar gues t hatt he di s t r i ctcourt ’ s s ent ence w as unr eas oned and u n r e a s o n a b l e . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 a n d a ffi r m. B efore revocati on of M r. D og ans’s supervi sed rel ease , t he t erm s of that r el eas e had be en modi fi ed tw i ce. A few w eeks aft erhe w as pl ace d on s upervi s ed r el eas e, t he di s t r i ctcour tr educe d hi s r es t i tut i on paym ent s fr om $1, 397 t o $350 p e rmo n t h b e c a u s e o f h i s i n a b i l i tyt o p a yt h e h i g h e rs u m. I n O ct ober2005, about 16 m ont hs aft erhi s s upervi s ed- r el eas e t erm began, he t es t ed pos i t i ve for m a riju a n a u s e a n d w a s c o n fin e d to h o m e d e te n tio n fo r 9 0 d a y s . T h e S e p tem b e r 2 0 0 6 p e tit io n a lleg e d th a t M r. D o g a n s h a d v io late d h is condi t i ons of r el eas e by (1) com m i t t i ng cri m es; (2) fai l i ng t o ab st ai n from t he u se of al cohol ; ( 3) fai l i ng t o not i fyhi s pr obat i on offi cerw i thi n 72 hour s of bei ng a rre ste d o r q u e stio n e d b ya law -e n fo rc e m e n t o ffice r; (4 ) fa ili n g to su b m it compl et e and trut hful w r i t t en r eport s t o hi s pr obat i on offi cerw i thi n the fi r s tfi ve day s of ea ch mont h; ( 5) fai l i ng t o ans w ert ruthful l yal l i nqui r i es byhi s pr obat i on offi cer ; ( 6) fai l i ng t o par t i ci pat e i n a pr ogr am of subs t ance - abus e af t er car e, as-3-

di r ect ed by hi s pr obat i on offi cer ; and ( 7) fai l i ng t o payr es t i tut i on i n acc or dance wi t h t h e c r i mi n a l j u d g me n ta g a i n s th i m. T he al l egat i ons w er e bas ed on the fol l ow i ng epi s odes : O n J anuary18, 2006, M r . D ogans w as i s s ued ci t at i ons byt he O kl ahoma H i ghw ayPatr ol for fai l i ng t o carr ypr oof of l i abi l i t ycover age a n d fo r o p e ra tin g a v e h icle w ith o u t a lic e n s e . H e fa i l ed t o r eportt hes e ci t at i ons t o hi s pr obat i on offi cer . H i s pr obat i on offi cerl earned of the ci t at i ons and verbal l yr epr i m anded M r . D ogans on M ar ch 27, 2006, fort hi s fai l ur e. O n J une 21, 2006, t he pr obat i on offi cerl earned t hatM r . D ogans had fa i l ed t o r epor ta M ar ch 6 ci t at i on fora s eat - bel tvi ol at i on, e v e n a f te r h a v in g b e e n v e rb a lly re p ri m a n d e d o n M a rc h 2 7 fo r a s im ila r fa ilu re . O n Ju ly3 M r. D o g an s d en ied to h is pro b ati o n o fficer tha t he h ad fa il ed to rep o rt t he M ar ch 6 ci t at i on. O n J ul y21 and A ugus t21, 2006, M r . D ogans fai l ed t o r eportforr equi r ed r andom drug t es t s . O n A ugus t4 he w as arr es t ed byO kl ahoma C i typol i ce offi cer s aft eral l egedl yvandal i zi ng pr i vat e pr opertyatan apa r t m entcompl ex. T he v i ct i m s r epo rt ed thatM r. D og ans t hrew an o bjectt hroug h thei r s l i ding-gl ass d o o r a n d p a in ted a p ro fa n e sta tem e n t o n th e ir f ro n t d o o r. M r. D o g a n s’s b re a th had an odorof al cohol and he a ppear ed t o have be en dr i nki ng. M r . D ogans had p re v io u slyb e e n q u e stio n e d b yp o lice o ffice rs in Ju n e 2 0 0 6 re g a rd in g a se p a ra te i nci dentof pr opert ydes t ruct i on. B utata meet i ng w i th hi s pr obat i on offi ceron-4-

A u g u st 1 8 , h e d e n ied h a v in g h a d a n yc o n tac t w ith law -e n fo rc e m e n t o ffice rs in J une. M r . D ogans al s o fai l ed t o m ake r equi r ed r es t i tut i on paym ent s s ever al t i m es dur i ng hi s s upervi s ed r el eas e. H e made no paym ent s fr om J anuaryt hr ough M ay 2006. O n A ugus t3, 2006, aft erbei ng i nform ed thathi s fai l ur es t o payhad bee n r epor t ed t o t he court , he ca l l ed hi s pr obat i on offi cert o s ayt hathe had mai l ed a $ 3 0 0 p a ym e n tt h e p r e v i o u s d a y. T o documentt he paym ent , he s ubm i t t ed a m oney - or derr ece i ptt o hi s pr obat i on offi cer . U pon i nves t i gat i on byt he pr obat i on o ffice r, h o w e v e r, th e re c e ip t w a s d e ter m in e d to b e fo r M r. D o g a n s’s re n t, no t a re stitu tio n p a ym e n t. T he di s t r i ctcour tfound bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence t hatt he al l egat i ons i n t he pet i t i on w er e true. M r . D ogans r eques t ed thathi s s upervi s ed r el eas e notbe r evoked butar gued i n the al t ernat i ve thatt he appl i cabl e s ent enci ng r ange forhi s vi ol at i ons w as 5- 11 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm entunderC hapt er7 of the U n ited S tate s S e n ten c in g G u id e lin e s (U S S G ). T h e d istric t co u rt se n ten c e d h im to tw o y e a rs’ im p riso n m e n t. T he di s t r i ctcour tnot ed the l ar ge numberand s ever i tyof the offens es char ged i n t he pet i t i on, i ncl udi ng num er ous l aw - enfor cementcont act s and M r . D ogans ’ s des t ruct i on of pr i vat e pr operty . I temphasi zed hi s fai l ur e t o m ake hi s r es t i tut i on paym ent s des pi t e the modi fi cat i on i n the amountow ed and the e x tre m e e ffo rts b yh is c o d e fe n d a n t to m a k e h e r o w n re stitu tio n p a ym e n ts. A n d it-5-

des cr i bed as “outr ageous ” M r . D ogans ’ s att empt t o dece i ve hi s pr obat i on offi cer w ith a m o n e y -o rd e r r e c e ip t. R . V o l. 2 a t 4 2 . G i ven the numberof vi ol at i ons out l i ned i n t he pet i t i on, and the fa i l ur e of pr evi ous m odi fi cat i ons t o affect M r . D ogans ’ s behavi or , t he courtdes cr i bed hi m as “nots upervi s abl e. ” Id . It further st at ed thata sent ence o f t w o y ears ’ i m pri sonm ent w as approp ri at e beca use i tw oul d perm i tM r . D ogans t o r ece i ve drug- r ehabi l i t at i on tre a tm e n t. M r. D o g a n s d o e s n o t co n tes t th e fin d in g s o f th e d istric t co u rt, o n lyh is s e n t e n c e . He c o n t e n d s o n a p p e a l t h a ti ti s u n r e a s o n e d a n d u n r e a s o n a b l e . He ar gues t hatt he di s t r i ctcour tfai l ed t o pr oper l ycons i derC hapt er7’ s s ugges t ed s e n te n c e o f

5 -1 1 m o n th s ’ i m p ri s o n m e n t, o r t h e fa c to rs in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ). W e rej ectt hese argum ents . U SSG C hapt er7 addr es s es s ent enci ng forvi ol at i ons of condi t i ons of r el eas e. L i ke the G ui del i nes pr ovi s i ons fors ent enci ng upon convi ct i on of a cr i m e, C hapt er7 pr ovi des a s ent enci ng r ange ba s ed on the s ever i tyof the vi ol a t i on a nd t he offe nd e r ’ s c r i mi na l hi s t ory . The r a ng e s a pp e a ri n USSG § 7 B 1 .4 (a ), w h ic h h a s a lw a y s b e e n a “ p o lic ys ta te m e n t” ra th e r t h a n a “ g u id e lin e .” See Uni t ed Stat es v. B ur dex , 1 0 0 F . 3 d 8 8 2 , 8 8 5 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ); Uni t ed Stat es v. Hurst , 78 F. 3d 482, 483 ( 10t h C i r . 1996) . T he di s tr i ctcourtm us tcons i dert he C h a p te r 7 p o lic ys ta te m e n ts w h e n im p o s in g s e n te n c e , s ee Uni t ed Stat es v. Kel l ey , 3 5 9 F .3 d 1 3 0 2 , 1 3 0 4

– 0 5 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ); b u t w e w ill n o t d istu rb a se n ten c e in exce s s of the C hapt er7 r ange “i f i tcan be det erm i ned fr om t he r ecor d t o have-6-

been r eas oned and r eas onabl e. ” United S tates v. Tedford , 405 F. 3d 1159, 1161 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). M r . D ogans ’ s s ent ence w as r eas oned and r eas onabl e. T hatM r . D ogans d is a g re e s w ith th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s e x p la n a tio n d o e s n o t m a k e it u n re a s o n e d . Per haps one err orw as t he di s t r i ctcourt ’ s fai l ur e t o m ent i on C hapt er7. B ut“eve n fai l ur e t o cons i derC hapt er7 pol i cys t at ement s w hen s ent enci ng aft err evoca t i on o f su p e rv ise d re lea se is h a rm les s e rro r w h e n th e se n ten c e is c lea rlyre a so n a b le and j us t i fi ed. ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Lee , 9 5 7 F .2 d 7 7 0 , 7 7 5 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ). T h e re lev a n t fa c to rs s e t fo rth in 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 (a) are : “1) the n ature and ci r cumst ance s of the offens e, 2) t he hi s t oryand cha r act er i s t i cs of the defe ndant , 3) t he nee d fort he s ent ence t o affor d adequa t e det err ence t o cr i m i nal conduct , 4) t he nee d t o pr ot ectt he publ i c fr om fur thercr i m es of the defendant , 5) t he nee d t o pr ovi de the defendantw i th neede d tr ai ni ng, m edi cal car e, or corr ect i onal t r eatm ent , and 6) t he s ent enci ng r ange e s t abl i s hed undert he s ent enci ng gui del i nes ort he pol i cys t at ement s appl i cabl e t o a vi ol at i on of s upervi s ed r el eas e. ” Kel l ey , 359 F. 3d at1304. I n ourvi ew , t he s ent ence w as cl earl yreas on able and just i fi ed in l i gh tof these fact ors. We AF F I RM t h e s e n t e n c e b e l o w. ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT H a rris L H a rtz C i r cui tJ udge