Court Opinion

ID: 9410982
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-25 15:01:14.088151+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:01.887998
License: Public Domain

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                                  [Unpublished]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-of-
discretion 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-