Opinion ID: 3063275
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Revocation Hearing and Sentencing

Text: At the revocation hearing, Keechle admitted that he pled guilty to marijuana possession and resisting arrest in Ohio in July 2009 (i.e., partial admission to second violation) and that he traveled outside the district (fourth violation). The government stated that it would not press the two remaining violations alleged in the petition for revocation, but would discuss them in addressing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. The district court concluded that Keechle’s partial admission lowered his violation from the sentencing memorandum’s recommended Grade B to a Grade C and reduced his guidelines range from 18 to 24 months’ to 7 to 13 months’ imprisonment and that his statutory maximum sentence was two years’ imprisonment. In mitigation, Keechle argued that he was an impulsive and “troubled young man,” with “almost . . . irresistible urges that he has to sort of lash out” and “[h]e acts upon it and runs away.” Keechle pointed to his years of drug and alcohol abuse, which contributed to many of his prior arrests and convictions. Keechle stressed that he initially complied with his supervision requirements and was trying to get mental health treatment, but had not yet been successful. He became depressed, “[got] back into drugs in very short order,” and, consistent with his past pattern, ran away in someone else’s car and got caught with drugs. Keechle noted 5 that, while serving his federal 46-month sentence, he was housed in a penitentiary, where he fought with gang members and was placed in a special housing unit. Keechle argued that he should not be placed in a penitentiary and asked for a recommendation to a facility where he could get mental health treatment. The district court noted the charges listed in the petition for revocation. The court acknowledged Keechle’s need for help, but emphasized the seriousness of Keechle’s supervised release violations, as follows: So, you know, I understand what you’re saying, that you need help. And I can appreciate that. But you can also appreciate how a person shouldn’t be doing any of that anyway, but especially a person on supervised release, who has a probation officer, has obligations. So, this is pretty serious stuff. I mean, this isn’t . . . that you were late for your curfew or that you were -- this is serious stuff. This isn’t just a little bit. And so that’s the problem. In addressing Keechle’s “history and characteristics,” the government recounted the facts underlying the charges in the petition for revocation. The government pointed out that Keechle’s original presentence investigation report reflected a pattern of similar offenses in which Keechle led police on car or foot chases or was found by police asleep in cars. Many of these offenses involved alcohol or drugs. The government asked the district court to impose the statutory maximum of two years to protect the public while Keechle got substance abuse treatment in prison. In response, Keechle admitted that he had at least ten drug- or alcohol- 6 related arrests and had a substance abuse problem that manifested itself in patterns in his criminal history. Keechle contended that he needed long-term treatment. The district court stated that the § 3553(a) factors focus not only on the defendant’s history and characteristics, but also on the need to reflect the seriousness of the offense, provide punishment, deterrence and protection to the public. The district court stressed that Keechle was “unable to not commit crimes” even while under both state and federal supervision. The district court stated that, while it was not holding Keechle legally accountable for all of the recent criminal activity, it found the pattern “very troubling.” The district court explained that even if Keechle’s conduct was “fueled by drug addiction [and] perhaps mental health issues,” Keechle “as he currently is operating, is a danger the community” and the court had to consider the needs to protect the public and for deterrence. The district court stated that given “the limited range of options available” the court was “going to try to accomplish both of those things.” The district court noted that a further term of supervision “probably doesn’t make much sense” because Keechle faced state sentencing once he finished his federal custody. Given all of these considerations, the district court concluded that the statutory maximum sentence was “the correct sentence.” The district court recommended that Keechle receive mental health and intensive drug treatment 7 while incarcerated and, if possible, that Keechle be housed at Butner. Accordingly, the district court imposed a 24-month sentence, with no supervised release. Keechle filed this appeal.