United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 22-3165

___________________________

United States of America,

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,

v.

Dominic Aaron Taylor Duke, also known as Dominic Aaron Taylor-Duke,

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant.

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids

 ____________

 Submitted: May 8, 2023

Filed: July 25, 2023

[Unpublished]

____________

Before COLLOTON, WOLLMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Dominic Duke challenges a sentence imposed by the district court after a

second revocation of supervised release. The district court*

 varied upward from the

*The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa.
advisory guideline range and imposed a term of twenty-four months’ imprisonment. 

Duke argues that the sentence was unreasonable, but we conclude that there was no

abuse of discretion.

Duke’s supervision stems from a conviction in 2016 for unlawfully possessing

a firearm and ammunition as a felon. After he was released from prison in 2020, the

probation office reported that Duke violated the terms of his supervised release by

using alcohol, failing to participate in substance abuse testing, failing to participate

in alcohol testing, and failing to answer inquiries truthfully. Duke admitted the

violations, and the court modified his terms of supervised release to require the

performance of forty hours of community service.

After more violations in February 2021 for using drugs and alcohol and for

failing to test, the court revoked Duke’s term of supervised release. Duke served a

four-month term of imprisonment for those violations, and began a second term of

supervised release on September 3, 2021.

The current revocation occurred after Duke admitted that he failed to

participate in drug testing, used alcohol and controlled substances, and drove at

ninety-two miles per hour in a forty-five miles per hour zone while intoxicated. The

district court calculated an advisory guideline range of twelve to eighteen months’

imprisonment. Citing Duke’s history of bad behavior, his previous supervised release

violations, and the danger he posed to the public, the court varied upward to a term

of twenty-four months’ imprisonment.

On appeal, Duke argues that the sentence is unreasonable. We review the

reasonableness of a revocation sentence under the same deferential abuse-ofdiscretion standard that applies to initial sentencing proceedings. United States v.

Merrival, 521 F.3d 889, 890 (8th Cir. 2008); see Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38,

51 (2007). An abuse of discretion occurs when: (1) a court fails to consider a relevant

-2-
factor that should have received significant weight; (2) a court gives significant

weight to an improper or irrelevant factor; or (3) a court considers only the

appropriate factors but in weighing them commits a clear error of judgment. United

States v. Fitzpatrick, 943 F.3d 838, 840 (8th Cir. 2019). Duke argues that his

revocation sentence is unreasonable because the district court weighed the sentencing

factors incorrectly and imposed a sentence that was greater than necessary.

Duke argues that the district court placed too much weight on a statement by

the judge who presided at Duke’s prior sentencing hearing. In that earlier hearing, the

judge said that if he saw Duke again in his courtroom for another violation, then the

judge would “send [him] back to prison for as long as [he] could under the statute.” 

Duke also complains that the court in the present case gave too little weight to Duke’s

personal circumstances, including that his drunk driving was tied to the anniversary

of the death of several close family members, that he was gainfully employed and

supporting his children, and that he had a history of mental illness.

The sentencing statute gives the district court wide latitude to weigh the

relevant factors in each case, and it was permissible for the court to place greater

weight on the aggravating factors. The court properly cited the prior judge’s statement

in the context of observing that Duke had been treated leniently after previous

violations and received fair warning about the potential consequences of another

transgression. The court emphasized that Duke’s misconduct on release was “all a

pattern,” and that he is “still totally out of control.”

The court acknowledged Duke’s personal circumstances, noting it was “sure

the death of family members didn’t help,” and that Duke had experienced “mental

health-type problems.” But the court properly stressed that Duke is “an extremely

dangerous person at this time to any community where he is loose because he is out

of control with his drinking.” The court did not abuse its discretion in concluding

-3-
that a sentence of twenty-four months’ imprisonment was necessary to protect the

public and otherwise appropriate in light of Duke’s history and characteristics.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

-4-