Court Opinion

ID: 9405804
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-29 15:01:31.867769+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:24.532777
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 22-3339
                         ___________________________

                             United States of America

                                       Plaintiff - Appellee

                                         v.

                             Deshawn Michael Watson

                                    Defendant - Appellant
                                  ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                          for the District of Minnesota
                                 ____________

                             Submitted: April 11, 2023
                               Filed: June 29, 2023
                                  [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before BENTON, GRASZ, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
                           ____________

PER CURIAM.

       In November 2017, Deshawn Watson was sentenced to 33 months of
imprisonment and three years of supervised release after he pled guilty to unlawfully
possessing a firearm and ammunition as a convicted felon. He was released from
custody in March 2020. In August 2022, the government filed a revocation petition
alleging five violations of the conditions of his supervised release. In September
2022, the government filed an amendment to the revocation petition alleging an
additional violation after Watson was arrested. In October 2022, the government
filed a second amendment to the petition alleging three more violations after Watson
violated a no-contact order. Before the scheduled revocation hearing, the parties
agreed on a recommended sentence of five months of imprisonment. However, the
evening prior to the hearing, Watson engaged in activity that suggested he had
committed additional violations, and the government amended its position.

       At the revocation hearing, Watson admitted to violating several conditions of
his supervised release, including failing to reside at an approved residence, lying to
his probation officer, failing to submit to urinalysis testing, and failing to follow the
rules of his house arrest. Based on those violations, which were all Grade C offenses,
and his Category II criminal history, the recommended sentencing range was four to
ten months of imprisonment. The government asked for a ten-month sentence,
which the district court 1 imposed.

       On appeal, Watson challenges the substantive reasonableness of this sentence.
“This court reviews the reasonableness of a revocation sentence under the same
deferential abuse-of-discretion standard that applies to initial sentencing
proceedings.” United States v. Dixon, 52 F.4th 731, 733 (8th Cir. 2022). “A district
court abuses its discretion when it (1) ‘fails to consider a relevant factor that should
have received significant weight’; (2) ‘gives significant weight to an improper or
irrelevant factor’; or (3) ‘considers only the appropriate factors but in weighing those
factors commits a clear error of judgment.’” United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d
455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (quoting United States v. Kane, 552 F.3d 748,
752 (8th Cir. 2009)). “The district court has wide latitude” in weighing the statutory
factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). United States v. Bridges, 569 F.3d 374, 379
(8th Cir. 2009). A district court may exercise discretion in “assign[ing] some factors
greater weight than others . . . .” Id.

      1
      The Honorable Eric C. Tostrud, United States District Judge for the District
of Minnesota.
                                     -2-
      Watson contends the revocation sentence was substantively unreasonable
because the district court failed to give mitigating factors enough weight when
reaching its sentencing decision. Namely, Watson claims the district court should
have given greater weight to the following factors: (1) he had obtained a good job
without the help of probation; (2) he had some successes in his treatment program;
and (3) his violations were related to his struggles with alcohol and substance abuse.
The record shows, however, the district court weighed these mitigating factors
against the aggravating circumstances surrounding the revocation and concluded the
multiple violations of Watson’s supervised release warranted a top-of-the-
Guidelines sentence.

        The district court did not abuse its discretion. First, “a defendant’s
disagreement with the district court’s balancing of relevant considerations” is not by
itself grounds for reversal. United States v. Campbell, 986 F.3d 782, 800 (8th Cir.
2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 751 (2022). Further, this circuit has “frequently
upheld revocation sentences that varied upward from the advisory guidelines range
because defendant was a ‘recidivist violator’ of supervised release conditions.”
United States v. Kocher, 932 F.3d 661, 664 (8th Cir. 2019); accord United States v.
Johnson, 827 F.3d 740, 745 (8th Cir. 2016) (concluding a revocation sentence was
substantively reasonable due in part to the defendant’s “multiple violation reports”).

      Considering Watson’s repeated violations of his supervised release, we
conclude the district court’s imposition of a sentence at the top of the Guidelines
range was not substantively unreasonable. The fact that his mitigating factors were
not given “as much ‘weight’ as [Watson] would have preferred does not justify
reversal . . . .” Bridges, 569 F.3d at 379.

      Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
                     ______________________________

                                         -3-