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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 3- 25 52

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

And rew G. Bro wn

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 Ne br as ka - Om ah a

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Decem

be r 16 , 20 13 Fil ed : Fe br ua ry

3, 2 01 4 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re MUR PHY, BYE, and SMITH, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
PER CURI AM.

And rew Bro wn ap pe al s th e se nt en ce im po se d by th e di st ric t co ur t fo r vi ol at ion 1
of hi s su pe rv is ed rel eas e. I n 2 0 0 5 Bro wn pl ed gu il ty to fed eral dr ug an d fir earm

The Hon or ab le Lau rie Sm it h Cam p, Ch ie f Ju dg e of th e Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct 1 Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of Ne br as ka

.ch arg es an d was se nt en ced to 19 5 m on th s i m pr is on m en t an d 6 0 m on th s s up erv is ed
rel eas e; hi s se nt en ce was la te r red uc ed t o 1 65 m on th s. Afte r Bro wn was rel eas ed
fro m pr is on , he vi ol at ed co nd it io ns of hi s rel eas e m or e th an on ce an d hi s rel eas e was

rev ok ed fo r th e se co nd ti m e in Ju ne 20 13

. H e arg ue s th at th e rev oc at io n se nt en ce im po se d b y th e d is tri ct co ur t was su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le . W e aff

irm.

Bro wn, who ha s a hi st or y of dr ug an d al co ho l ab us e, was rel e a s e d fro m

co nf in em en t in Mar ch 20 11 an d was su bs eq ue nt ly pl aced in fo ur di ffer en t tre at m en t

pr og ram s. He le ft th e fir st pr io r to it s co m pl et io n an d th e se co nd be fo re it s st art

. He

was rem ov ed fro m a th ird pr og ram an d di d no t ap pe ar fo r th e fo ur th

. Bro wn's rel eas e

was th en rev ok ed i n F e br ua ry 20 12 aft er he ha d ad m it te d to vi ol at io ns

. He was

se nt en ced as a res ul t to 13 m on th s im pr is on m en t and 36 m on th s su pe rv is ed rel eas e.

In Nov em be r 20 12 Bro wn was ag ai n rel eas ed

. He ch eck ed in to a pr et reat m en t

pr og ram wit h th e as si st an ce of the pr ob at io n offi ce bu t le ft pr io r to it s st art

. Afte r a

c a r in whi ch he was rid in g was st op pe d by th e Om ah a po li ce in Feb ru ary 20 13
, Bro wn walk ed away an d ga ve a fal se na m e whe n app reh en de d with in a few blo ck s. Bro wn th en pl ed gu il ty to cri m in al im pe rs on at io n, a cl as s IV fel on y

. At a rev oc at io n he ari ng on Ju ne 27
, 20 13
, he ad m it te d th at he ha d vi ol at ed th e te rm s of hi s rel eas e by

co m m it ti ng cri m in al im

pe rs on at io n. His gu id el in e ran ge was cal cu la te d as 18 to 21

m on th s im

pr is on m en t, an d th e pr ob at io n of fic e reco m

m en de d a se nt en ce of 24

m on th s wit h no su pe rv is ed rel eas e. The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced Bro wn to 21 m on th s im pr is on m en t an d 23 m on th s s up erv is ed rel eas e, st at in g t ha t t he su pe rv is ed rel eas e

was for th e p ur po se of p ro te ct in g s oc ie ty.

W he n no p r o c ed ur al erro r ha s be en al le ge d, we rev ie w th e su bs ta nt iv e

reas on ab le ne ss of a se nt en ce for abu se of di sc ret io n. Uni te d St at es v. Shep ard
, 65 7
F.3 d 68 2, 68 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ); Uni te d St at es v. Feem st er, 57 2 F.3 d 45 5, 46 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (en ba nc ). An ab us e of di sc ret io n oc cu rs if a se nt en ci ng co ur t "fa il s to co ns id er

a rel ev an t fact or th at shou ld ha ve re ce ived si gn ifi can t weig ht
, gi ve s si gn ifi can t weig ht

-2

-t o a n i mpro pe r 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 b u 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. W at so n, 48 0 F.3 d 11 75
, 11 77 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ). W e m ay "ap pl y a pr es um pt io n of

reas on ab le ne ss " to a se nt en ce wit hi n th e gu id el in e ran ge

. Feem st er, 57 2 F.3 d at 46 1 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) (ci ti ng Gall v. U n it ed St at es , 55 2 U.S. 38
, 51 (2 00 7) ). Bro wn argu es th at hi s se nt en ce is su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le be cau se it is

gr eat er t ha n n eces sa ry

to ser ve th e p ur

po se s o f 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a).

W e co nc lu de th at th e se nt en ce im po se d by th e di st ric t co ur t was n o t

un reas on ab le . B ro wn ar gu es th at hi s re vo cat io n s en te nc e sh ou ld ha ve be en sh or te r be cau se hi s st at e la w c riminal im pe rs on at io n c rime cou ld ha ve be en ch arg ed as th e mi s d e meano r of

fen se of fal se rep or ti ng , whi ch wou ld ha ve res ul te d in a lo we r

se nt en ci ng gu id el i n e r a n g e

. He pl ed gu il ty to th e fel on y ch arg e of cri m in al
im pe rs on at io n, ho wev er. Bro wn al so arg ue s th at he ha s be en op en wit h th e pr ob at io n of fic e ab ou t hi s ad di ct io n an d th at hi s e f f or ts to rece iv e tre at m en t ha ve be en

co m pl ic at ed by a ps y ch ol og ic al di sa bi li ty. The di st ric t co ur t in di cat ed at se nt en ci ng th at it was aware of hi s pr ob le m s bu t ne ve rth el es s im po se d a s e n t e n c e at th e to p of
th e gu id el in e ran ge an d st at ed th at th e su pe rv is ed rel eas e w a s n e e de d to pr ot ect

so ci et y

.

Alt ho ug h Bro wn's se nt en ce was at th e to p of th e gu id el in e ran ge , he ha d twi ce vi ol at ed hi s su pe rv is e d rel eas e an d ha d rem ov ed hi m se lf fro m tre at m en t pr og ram s. W e ha ve pr ev io us ly affi rm ed a rev oc at io n se nt en ce ab ov e th e gu id el in e ran ge whe n
t he res po nd en t was "u nl ik el y to un de rg o reh ab il it at io n wit ho ut th e c o n s t a n t

su pe rv is io n p ro vi de d b y

in carc erat io n." Uni te d S ta te s v . Bear R ob e, 52 1 F .3d 90 9,
91 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ). W e ha ve al so affi rm ed a se nt en ce ab ov e th e g u id el in e ran ge whe n th e co ur t no te d "re pe at e d v i o l a t i o n s of

. . . su pe rv is ed rel eas e, th e rel at iv e

se ve rit y of

th os e v io la ti on s, an d t he si gn ifi can t d own ward de pa rtu re gran te d at [th e de fen da nt 's] or ig in al se nt en ci ng ." Uni te d St at es v. Ja sp er, 33 8 F.3 d 86 5, 86 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ).

-3

-A f

t e r r e v i ewin g th e who le reco rd , we co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d n ot ab us e it s di sc ret io n in im

po si ng Bro wn's se nt en ce fo r vi ol at in g th e co nd it io ns of hi s

su pe rv is ed rel eas e. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

.

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

-4

-