Court Opinion

ID: 9913293
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-27 17:00:51.385415+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:00:47.412840
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 23-2228
                         ___________________________

                             United States of America

                                       Plaintiff - Appellee

                                          v.

                               Adam Robert Chartier

                                     Defendant - Appellant
                                   ____________

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

                          Submitted: November 13, 2023
                            Filed: December 27, 2023
                                   [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before COLLOTON, WOLLMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
                       ____________

PER CURIAM.

       In 2013, Adam Robert Chartier pled guilty to possession of pseudoephedrine
to manufacture methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(c)(2). The district
court sentenced him to 113 months in prison and three years of supervised release.
In 2020, he violated his first term of release. The district court sentenced him to 24
months in prison and one year of supervised release. In 2023, he violated his second
term of release. The district court 1 sentenced him to 18 months in prison. He appeals
his sentence. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

       Chartier asserts his above-guidelines revocation sentence of 18 months
(guidelines range 8 to 14 months) is substantively unreasonable. This court reviews
for abuse of discretion. United States v. Beran, 751 F.3d 872, 875 (8th Cir. 2014).
“[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).

       The district court properly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors,
including Chartier’s repeated violations of his conditions of supervision and his
criminal history (two federal drug convictions, burglary, assault, and operating a
vehicle while intoxicated). Chartier believes the court failed to consider his
substance abuse issues. But the court specifically discussed them, noting he “had all
kinds of opportunities for drug treatment and has continued to use.” See United
States v. Merrival, 521 F.3d 889, 890-91 (8th Cir. 2008) (affirming an above-
guidelines revocation sentence where drug rehabilitation was ineffective). He also
argues the court improperly faulted him for contesting certain violations. This is
inaccurate. Rather, the court considered his lies in contesting the violations. This is
not improper. See United States v. Crane, 2022 WL 13705211, at *2 (8th Cir. Oct.
24, 2022) (unpublished) (affirming an above-guidelines revocation sentence and
noting the court was “permitted to consider” defendant’s perjury). The court did not
abuse its discretion. See United States v. Growden, 663 F.3d 982, 984-85 (8th Cir.
2011) (affirming an above-guidelines sentence based on repeated violations on
release and refusal to take responsibility for crimes).

      1
      The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Court Judge for the
Northern District of Iowa.
                                   -2-
                           *******

The judgment is affirmed.
                   ______________________________

                               -3-