Court Opinion

ID: 9886348
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 16:00:44.674346+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:58.377611
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 23-1614
                         ___________________________

                              United States of America

                         lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                            v.

                                   Michael Ingram

                       lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                       ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                    for the Northern District of Iowa - Western
                                  ____________

                          Submitted: September 19, 2023
                             Filed: October 6, 2023
                                  [Unpublished]
                                 ____________

Before SMITH, Chief Judge, ARNOLD and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
                              ____________

PER CURIAM.

      After Michael Ingram completed his prison term for conspiring to distribute
and possess with intent to distribute fifty grams or more of cocaine base following a
conviction for a felony drug offense, see 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846, 851,
he twice had his supervised release revoked. When the district court1 revoked his
supervision a third time, it sentenced him to thirteen months' imprisonment. Ingram
maintains that this sentence is substantively unreasonable. We affirm.

       Ingram had struggled with supervision out of the gate. After being released
from prison on a Friday, he failed to report to a residential reentry center that evening
as instructed and waited to report the following Monday, explaining that he had
instead "hung out" with family and friends over the weekend. So the court ordered
him to spend fourteen days in jail. A few months later, after Ingram received fifteen
disciplinary reports at the residential reentry center, his placement there was
terminated. The court then revoked his supervision and sentenced him to sixty days
in prison and eight years of supervised release.

       Ingram found himself in trouble again a year later after he missed several drug
tests. He offered several reasons for the missed tests, including that he had forgotten,
had been sick, and had left his phone in a friend's car. He also told his probation
officer that he had consumed an edible marijuana product but did not realize what it
was when he consumed it. The court revoked Ingram's release again and sentenced
him to six months in prison and four years of supervised release. Ingram missed more
drug tests the following year, which he chalked up to having "a lot on his plate" and
forgetfulness. He also failed to advise his probation officer of an address change and
tested positive for marijuana. He said that he didn't consume marijuana to his
knowledge, but he did permit a co-worker, whom he knew to be a marijuana user, to
move things into Ingram's residence. The court ordered Ingram to complete twenty
hours of community service.

      1
        The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa.

                                          -2-
       A month or two later Ingram tested positive for marijuana. He surmised that
"he used a 'vape' that was not supposed to contain THC but may have." He also failed
to report for drug testing. At a hearing on the allegations, the district court rejected
Ingram's excuses for testing positive for marijuana and missing drug tests, pointing
out that he had made bogus excuses "throughout his time on supervision" and was "a
walking excuse machine" who "might be one of the unluckiest people on the planet
if he repeatedly is consuming controlled substances without his knowledge." And
since Ingram was 54 years old and had a poor record of supervision, the court did not
believe he would change but would instead, when confronted, lie or make excuses for
his conduct. So the court sentenced Ingram to thirteen months' imprisonment, just
slightly more than the four-to-ten months recommended under the Sentencing
Guidelines, with no supervision to follow.

       Ingram maintains on appeal that this sentence was substantively unreasonable,
offering many of the same excuses that the district court rejected. He also says that
the district court didn't adequately consider certain mitigating circumstances, such as
his employment history. We review a challenge to the substantive reasonableness of
the court's revocation sentence for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Harris,
55 F.4th 1162, 1163 (8th Cir. 2022).

       We detect no abuse of discretion here. The district court properly considered
the relevant sentencing criteria and determined that a sentence within the Guidelines
range was insufficient given Ingram's repeated violations, his failure to take
responsibility for his actions, and his unwillingness to follow the rules of supervision.
"We have repeatedly upheld revocation sentences that varied upward from the
advisory guidelines range because the defendant was a recidivist violator of
supervised release conditions." See id. at 1164. The district court, moreover,
expressly noted that Ingram's "good employment" was "certainly a positive," but it
found other circumstances weightier when fixing the sentence. It was well within the

                                          -3-
district court's wide discretion to do so. See United States v. Carnes, 22 F.4th 743,
751 (8th Cir. 2022).

      Affirmed.
                       ______________________________

                                         -4-