Court Opinion

ID: 9405797
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-29 15:01:25.653912+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:24.633738
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 22-3633
                        ___________________________

                            United States of America

                                      Plaintiff - Appellee

                                        v.

                               William Left Hand

                                   Defendant - Appellant
                                 ____________

                    Appeal from United States District Court
                   for the District of South Dakota - Northern
                                  ____________

                             Submitted: May 8, 2023
                              Filed: June 29, 2023
                                 [Unpublished]
                                 ____________

Before SHEPHERD, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
                           ____________

PER CURIAM.

      William Left Hand was convicted of abusive sexual contact and sentenced to
24 months’ imprisonment, followed by 5 years’ supervised release. After
completing his term of imprisonment, his initial term of supervised release was
revoked, and he was sentenced to 9 months’ imprisonment and 36 months’
supervised release. While serving his second term of supervised release, Left Hand
committed various violations, ultimately admitting to two—failing to participate in
therapy and failing to notify his probation officer within 72 hours of being arrested.
Left Hand then filed a pro se motion to withdraw his admissions. A magistrate judge
held a hearing and recommended that the motion be denied, which the district court 1
adopted. Left Hand then filed a motion to represent himself, which the district court
granted, followed by a motion to suppress and a motion for recusal, both of which
the district court denied as “nonsensical and contain[ing] wholly irrelevant legal
propositions.” At sentencing, the district court calculated the United States
Sentencing Guidelines range to be 3 to 9 months and varied upward to impose a
sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment and 36 months’ supervised release. Left Hand
appeals, arguing that the reasons for the sentence were not adequately explained and
the sentence is substantively unreasonable. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, we affirm.

        “[W]e review the district court’s revocation sentencing decision ‘under the
same “deferential-abuse-of-discretion” standard that applies to initial sentencing
proceedings.’” United States v. Johnson, 827 F.3d 740, 744 (8th Cir. 2016)
(emphasis omitted) (citation omitted). Left Hand first asserts that the district court
procedurally erred by failing to adequately explain the sentence. “In explaining the
sentence[,] the district court need only ‘set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court
that [it] has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising
[its] own legal decisionmaking authority.’” United States v. DeMarrias, 895 F.3d
570, 573 (8th Cir. 2018) (alterations in original) (citation omitted). Here, the district
court heard argument from Left Hand and his standby counsel as well as the
government. See United States v. Mays, 993 F.3d 607, 619 (8th Cir. 2021)
(“[W]here, as here, ‘issues are raised in sentencing position papers and at the
sentencing hearing, a district court is presumed to consider them.’” (citation
omitted)). Further, the district court reviewed and referenced Left Hand’s history of
noncompliance with conditions of supervised release. “[W]e have repeatedly stated

      1
        The Honorable Charles B. Kornmann, United States District Judge for the
District of South Dakota.
                                     -2-
that variances are appropriate based on repeated violations of supervised
release . . . .” United States v. Hall, 931 F.3d 694, 698 (8th Cir. 2019). Additionally,
the district court presided over all of Left Hand’s proceedings and was well aware
of his history and violations of supervised release. See United States v. Torres-
Ojeda, 829 F.3d 1027, 1029-30 (8th Cir. 2016) (“Sometimes a judicial [ruling]
responds to every argument; sometimes it does not; sometimes a judge . . . rel[ies]
upon context and the parties’ prior arguments to make the reasons clear.” (alterations
in the original) (citations omitted)). Finally, the district court stated that in
sentencing it was required to consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553 and
3583. We conclude that the district court adequately explained the reasons for Left
Hand’s sentence.

      Next, Left Hand asserts that the sentence imposed is substantively
unreasonable. “[I]t will be the unusual case when we reverse a district court
sentence—whether within, above, or below the applicable Guidelines range—as
substantively unreasonable.” United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 464 (8th Cir.
2009) (en banc). While Left Hand argues that his most recent violations of
supervised release were relatively minor, the district court acknowledged that it was
considering the applicable statutory factors, had detailed knowledge of Left Hand’s
circumstances and history as presiding judge from the commencement of his
prosecution, and focused on Left Hand’s history of supervised release violations.
From the foregoing, we find that the sentence in this case was substantively
reasonable.

      The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
                     ______________________________

                                          -3-