Court Opinion

ID: 9364405
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-19 16:01:39.54392+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:37.691348
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 22-6087     Document: 010110799915       Date Filed: 01/19/2023     Page: 1
                                                                                   FILED
                                                                       United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                          January 19, 2023
                          _________________________________
                                                                          Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                              Clerk of Court
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

        Plaintiff - Appellee,
                                                               No. 22-6087
  v.                                                 (D.C. No. 5:11-CR-00028-HE-1)
                                                              (W.D. Okla.)
  JESSIE RIVERA,

        Defendant - Appellant.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before PHILLIPS, MURPHY, and EID, Circuit Judges.
                    _________________________________

       After examining the briefs and appellate record, this court has determined

 unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this

 appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). Accordingly, we

 honor the parties’ requests and order the case submitted without oral argument.

       Jessie Rivera, a serial violator of the conditions of his terms of supervision,

 challenges on appeal the substantive reasonableness of his twenty-four month

 sentence for, once again, violating the conditions of his supervised release. In

 particular, Rivera asserts the length of the sentence, when coupled with the fact it

       *
         This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines
 of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for
 its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Appellate Case: 22-6087   Document: 010110799915      Date Filed: 01/19/2023      Page: 2

 was ordered to run consecutively to the sentence imposed for a crime that

 underlaid the revocation of supervised release, renders it unreasonably harsh.

 Because Rivera has not demonstrated that the district court abused its

 considerable discretion in imposing upon him a twenty-four month consecutive

 sentence, this court exercises jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and

 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) and AFFIRMS the district court’s judgment.

       In 2011, Rivera was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm

 and ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He was sentenced to

 thirty-six months in prison and three years of supervised release. The district

 court revoked Rivera’s supervised release in 2017 and sentenced him to eight

 months in prison, with a further term of twenty-five months of supervised release.

 In 2020, the district court again revoked Rivera’s supervised release. The district

 court sentenced Rivera to ten months in prison, to be followed by a twelve-month

 term of supervised release. Notably, the 2020 revocation was based on state

 convictions for possession of a firearm, possession of a controlled dangerous

 substance, and aggravated eluding of a police officer.

       Rivera began his third term of supervised release on January 25, 2021. He

 immediately struggled in supervision and admitted to using methamphetamine,

 cocaine, and marijuana. He tested positive in twelve of his fourteen collected

 urine screenings and failed to submit to testing five times. His probation officer

 discussed placing him in a residential substance abuse treatment facility, but

 Rivera claimed “he would discontinue use immediately so he could support his

                                          2
Appellate Case: 22-6087   Document: 010110799915       Date Filed: 01/19/2023    Page: 3

 family.” On April 26, 2021, Rivera was arrested for reckless driving after drag

 racing. On June 14, 2021, he was arrested for reckless driving and attempting to

 elude a police officer. He led officers on a chase after he failed to stop at a stop

 sign, with speeds near ninety miles per hour. The chase ended with Rivera

 crashing into the Oklahoma River. He was arrested but released hours later.

       Shortly thereafter, Rivera’s probation officer filed a Petition for Warrant or

 Summons for Offender Under Supervision. The petition alleged (1) Rivera

 committed new crimes on April 26th and June 14th, (2) he violated the terms of

 his supervised release as evidenced by positive urine tests for amphetamines and

 cannabinoids on April 20, 27, May 28, and June 3, 2021, and his admission “that

 he used several drugs prior to his test,” and (3) he failed to submit urine samples

 on May 11 and 20, 2021. When the United States Marshal Service arrested

 Rivera on June 16, 2021, after submission of the petition and judicial

 authorization of a warrant, he appeared to be “under the influence” and was

 seated in the passenger seat of a vehicle. From under that seat, marshals

 recovered a loaded handgun with a removed serial number. They also found

 heroin, methamphetamine, and marijuana, which Rivera admitting to possessing.

 Rivera’s probation officer filed an Amended Petition for Warrant or Summons for

 Offender Under Supervision, adding the June 16th handgun possession to the list

 of new crimes he committed while on supervised release, and adding a fourth

 violation for possession of heroin, methamphetamine, and marijuana on June

                                           3
Appellate Case: 22-6087    Document: 010110799915       Date Filed: 01/19/2023    Page: 4

 16th, and a fifth violation for Rivera’s failure to report his June 14th arrest to his

 probation officer.

       On June 24, 2021, the probation officer filed a violation report. It noted

 the highest grade of violation was Grade B and that Rivera fell into criminal

 history category III, which yielded an advisory sentencing range of eight to

 fourteen months’ imprisonment. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a). The probation officer,

 nevertheless, recommended a prison sentence of twenty-four months, with no

 supervised release to follow, “[b]ased upon the alleged violations, his continued

 pattern of possession of firearms and narcotics, and the complete disregard that

 [Rivera] has shown towards public safety, the law and towards his supervision.”

 In the interim, the government filed an information against Rivera, charging him

 with the crime of felon in possession of a firearm based on the events that

 occurred on June 16, 2021. Rivera’s supervised release revocation hearing was

 continued several times while the parties worked to resolve the felon-in-

 possession charge through a plea agreement.

       On May 18, 2022, the district court held a combined sentencing and

 revocation hearing, at which it sentenced Rivera to sixty-four months’

 imprisonment for the June 16, 2021 felon-in-possession crime, revoked his

 supervised release as to the 2011 conviction, and imposed a twenty-four month

 revocation sentence. At the hearing, Rivera stipulated to all violations alleged in

 the revocation petition. Both the government and defense counsel agreed the

 advisory guidelines sentencing range as to the June 16, 2021 felon-in-possession

                                           4
Appellate Case: 22-6087   Document: 010110799915      Date Filed: 01/19/2023      Page: 5

 conviction was sixty-three to seventy-eight months; both, however, requested a

 combined punishment of no more than sixty months for the revocation and the

 new conviction. In so agreeing, the government asserted Rivera had matured

 from his earlier, crime-ridden years; noted it did not believe he was recently

 involved in gang activity; and recognized he had been in county jail for nearly a

 year which was “harder time” than time in federal custody. The government

 acknowledged that, while Rivera had repeatedly possessed firearms, he had

 suffered ongoing trauma, noting his anxiety, ADHD, depression, and that his

 brother had literally died in his arms. The government recognized Rivera

 admitted he “always carried a gun because of his brother being murdered.” It

 described the circumstances of his latest June 16, 2021 arrest as “perhaps

 suggest[ing]” he was present in the vehicle with a companion only “to feed his

 methamphetamine habit, which has been ongoing for several years.” The

 government also noted that, although not affecting Rivera’s advisory sentencing

 range, the June 16, 2021 instance of drug possession was a misdemeanor offense

 under state law. Finally, the government acknowledged the circumstances when

 Rivera “eluded officers, which causes, of course, a danger to the public as well.”

 Ultimately, however, in the government’s view, “all things considered . . . a

 sentence of 60 months combined on both cases in sufficient but not greater than

 necessary to meet the ends of sentencing.”

       The district court rejected the parties’ recommendation and imposed a

 twenty-four month sentence, to run consecutive to sixty-four months’ of

                                          5
Appellate Case: 22-6087   Document: 010110799915       Date Filed: 01/19/2023       Page: 6

 imprisonment on the June 16, 2021 felon-in-possession conviction. In explaining

 the basis of its sentence, the court stressed the overriding need to protect the

 public and deter future criminal acts:

       [I]n this case, as in every case, I consider the recommendations of
       the Federal Sentencing Guidelines but my ultimate sentencing
       determination is based on application of the statutory sentencing
       factors which are set out in the criminal code. Those require me,
       among other things, to consider the nature and circumstances of the
       offense.

             Here, the offense, of course, is the defendant is a felon in
       possession of a firearm. The particular circumstances weren’t
       particularly egregious in the fact that the defendant appears not to
       have been using the firearm or otherwise employing it in any active
       way beyond having it there to support whatever activities he might
       have been contemplating or thinking about, but it’s, nonetheless, of
       course, a serious offense.

              The seriousness itself is something I’ve got to consider as
       well, but a felon in possession, particularly against the backdrop of
       this defendant’s criminal history, is a big deal. So I’ve considered
       that.

             I’m also required to consider the history and characteristics of
       the defendant. Here, in terms of the defendant’s background and
       upbringing, he has some things that would incline me to be more
       sympathetic to him in terms of the adverse events in his childhood:
       The abuse from his father, the experience of his brother being killed
       while he was there with him.

              And all of that has undoubtedly contributed to an ample basis
       for the PTSD diagnosis that was apparently made by somebody at
       some point. So that cuts in the defendant’s favor.

              ....

             The thing, of course, that is the most not helpful to the
       defendant that relates to the defendant’s history is his criminal
       history.

                                           6
Appellate Case: 22-6087   Document: 010110799915       Date Filed: 01/19/2023     Page: 7

              It is true, I think, as defense counsel has argued, that the
       particular guideline calculation here -- and this comment that I’m
       about to make doesn’t necessarily have to do with the criminal
       history calculation as much as the offense level adjustment -- but I
       do think there is some force to the argument that the particular drug
       offense that he committed that is the basis for the enhancement under
       the guidelines probably tends to overstate the seriousness of the
       offense because it was essentially a simple possession of a drug that
       would not now be the basis for a felony under state law and may at
       some point may not be under federal law. So I think there is some
       force to that argument.

               On the other hand, though, the -- the factors that do impact the
       criminal history category are the prior offenses. This defendant has
       a string of firearms offenses that go back over 10 or 15 years, and
       it’s a very lengthy one.

              Oftentimes in these situations one of the things I take into
       account is if we’re dealing with a guideline range that otherwise
       makes sense and I look at someone’s criminal history category and I
       see that they’ve got a prior conviction for the very same offense, that
       is a factor that will often cause me to say that’s a reason to sentence
       them at the top of the guideline range because it’s not just criminal
       history in general but it’s criminal history for doing the very thing
       that they’re standing in front of the Court for.

             Here we’ve not only got that, but we’ve got multiple prior
       convictions for the very same thing. We’re talking about five or six
       or seven of them.

             I’ve been doing this for about 20 years, and I don’t think I’ve
       seen any situation where someone appeared in front of me on a
       possession of a -- a felon in possession of a firearm with what
       appeared to be five or six or seven prior convictions for the same
       offense. And it seems to me that that puts this in a whole different
       category than would otherwise be the case.

             Part of what I’m required to take into account is the need to
       protect the public, the need to deter the criminal activity that the
       defendant has engaged in. And what this course of conduct over
       many years and multiple convictions indicates to me is that there is a
       substantial need to protect the public from the risk of gun violence,

                                          7
Appellate Case: 22-6087   Document: 010110799915       Date Filed: 01/19/2023      Page: 8

       because the defendant has repeatedly had a gun although he’s been
       repeatedly told it’s not legal to have one.

              The deterrent aspect of this has obviously not worked. He’s
       received multiple sentences on various occasions, and he kept doing
       it time after time after time.

             I fully appreciate that the defendant had a horrible experience
       when his brother was killed and all of that, and no doubt that may be
       a reason you want to be armed. But at some point since 2008, it
       appears to me when that happened he’s had three or four or five -- I
       haven’t attempted to calculate it exactly -- three or four or five
       convictions for being in possession of a firearm.

             At some point it simply doesn’t matter whether there was some
       kind of understandable reason 15 years ago for possession of a
       firearm when the legal system has repeatedly said it’s illegal and
       you’ve got to ultimately follow the law.

              So it seems to me that what we’re dealing with here, in terms
       of the repetitive instances of a felon being in possession of a firearm,
       is that this is a truly egregious course of conduct over a period of -- a
       substantial period. And, frankly, I don’t see how you can get to a
       60-month sentence or a downward variance in the face of that.

              ....

              The defendant says, I’ve learned my lesson, I’m moving in a
       direction -- a different direction, and I certainly hope that is true.
       But against the record I’m looking at here, this defendant has had
       multiple opportunities to change direction over the last 15 years and
       he hasn’t done it.

             At some point he’s got to do it. At some point I hope he does
       it. But it hasn’t happened yet. And it just seems to me that against
       the backdrop of that repetitive conduct, the sentence of 60 months
       for both is not even in the ballpark. I’m a little surprised that we’re
       even here with the government agreeing to that.

              But it does seem to me that the multiple convictions that we’re
       dealing with here, that, coupled with the fact that – and this is, I
       think, made more clear maybe in the supervised release context --

                                           8
Appellate Case: 22-6087   Document: 010110799915        Date Filed: 01/19/2023      Page: 9

       we’re also dealing with an ongoing illegal drug use that’s extended
       now through three terms of supervised release.

             The revocations have all been on similar grounds. I don’t
       mean to suggest that I think getting -- dealing with a drug habit is or
       ought to be easy. It isn’t easy. There’s nothing easy about it.

             But, at the same time, the system has attempted, through
       multiple terms of supervised release, to assist the defendant in
       coming to grips with that, and it obviously hasn’t worked up until
       now so that we’re still getting instances like the instances in 2021 of
       driving under the influence, eluding officers, jeopardizing the public
       in multiple ways, that way that don’t even involve firearms.

              So there are a variety of factors here that it would seem to me
       lead to the conclusion that there has to be a meaningful sentence in
       this case and, frankly, 60 months doesn’t get there.

              So it’s -- the result of all of that, I think -- and this is taking
       into account the fact that the reference to the marijuana conviction
       probably overstates the significance of it. It also tends to take into
       account the perhaps harder-than-usual time that the defendant did in
       Cleveland County.

              But, having taken all that into account, it will be the judgment
       of the Court that the defendant be sentenced in [the June 16, 2021
       felon-in-possession case] to a term of 64 months’ imprisonment, and
       that his term of supervised release be revoked . . . and that he be
       sentenced to a term of incarceration of 24 months in that case, with
       the sentences to run consecutive to each other. In other words, a
       total sentence of 88 months.

       Rivera does not challenge on appeal the sixty-four month sentence imposed

 on the June 16, 2021 felon-in-possession conviction. He challenges only the

 substantive reasonableness of his twenty-four month revocation sentence. 1 This

       1
         This court notes that although Rivera does not seem to narrowly challenge
 the district court’s decision to order the revocation sentence to run consecutively
 to the June 16, 2021 felon-in-possession sentence—but instead challenges the
 length of the revocation sentence, at least in part, based on its relationship to the
                                            9
Appellate Case: 22-6087    Document: 010110799915       Date Filed: 01/19/2023    Page: 10

  court reviews challenges to the substantive reasonableness of a sentence after

  revocation of supervised release for an abuse of discretion. United States v.

  Williams, 994 F.3d 1176, 1180 (10th Cir. 2021). Under this standard, this court

  “give[s] substantial deference to the district court and will only overturn a

  sentence that is arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or manifestly unreasonable.” Id.

  (quotation omitted). “[T]o win a substantive reasonableness appeal is no easy

  thing.” United States v. Rendon-Alamo, 621 F.3d 1307, 1310 n.** (10th Cir.

  2010). “[I]n many cases there will be a range of possible outcomes the facts and

  law at issue can fairly support; rather than pick and choose among them . . ., [this

  court] will defer to the district court’s judgment so long as it falls within the

  realm of these rationally available choices.” United States v. McComb, 519 F.3d

  1049, 1053 (10th Cir. 2007).

        In light of the district court’s thoughtful analysis and balancing of those

  18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors relevant in the revocation context, see id. § 3583(e),

  Rivera’s challenges to the substantive reasonableness of his twenty-four month

  sentence are not weighty. Indeed, those arguments appear to be based on a desire

  for this court to reweigh de novo the relevant sentencing factors. But see United

  felon-in-possession conviction—the district court’s decision to impose the
  revocation sentence consecutively is consistent with the advisory Sentencing
  Guidelines. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f) (“Any term of imprisonment imposed upon
  the revocation of probation or supervised release shall be ordered to be served
  consecutively to any sentence of imprisonment that the defendant is serving,
  whether or not the sentence of imprisonment being served resulted from the
  conduct that is the basis of the revocation of probation or supervised release.”).

                                            10
Appellate Case: 22-6087    Document: 010110799915       Date Filed: 01/19/2023    Page: 11

  States v. Smart, 518 F.3d 800, 808 (10th Cir. 2008) (explaining this court “may

  not examine the weight a district court assigns to various § 3553(a) factors, and

  its ultimate assessment of the balance between them” but “[i]nstead, . . . must

  give due deference to the district court’s decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on a

  whole, justify the extent of the variance” (quotation and citation omitted)).

        Rivera argues the district court failed to consider how his drug addiction

  “was the primary driver of his behavior, dismissing it as a ‘drug habit,’ and

  stating that supervised release had tried to help him ‘come to grips’ with it but

  then failing to state exactly what had been done to help him so do.” Rivera’s

  Opening Br. at 11. This assertion is not tenable. The transcript of the sentencing

  hearing, together with the district court’s oral sentencing decision, makes clear

  the district court was well-aware of the impact of Rivera’s drug addiction on his

  recidivist history. Under the particular facts of this case, however, the district

  court concluded that factor simply did not outweigh the need to protect the public

  and to deter future crimes on the part of Rivera. Indeed, the record reveals that

  Rivera’s drug use often coincided with his illegal possession of a weapon. See

  Smith v. United States, 508 U.S. 223, 240 (1993) (recognizing that “drugs and

  guns are a dangerous combination”). Furthermore, the district court reasonably

  concluded that, even apart from the possession of firearms while in an altered

  state, his conduct while intoxicated—i.e., fleeing and evading arrest—rendered

  him even more dangerous to the public. Nor can it be credibly claimed that the

  district court erred in recognizing Rivera’s continued addiction came in the face

                                           11
Appellate Case: 22-6087    Document: 010110799915        Date Filed: 01/19/2023     Page: 12

  of help afforded to supervisees. When Rivera struggled with his addiction at the

  very beginning of his third attempt at supervised release, his probation officer

  offered to have him placed in a residential substance abuse treatment facility.

  Rivera rejected that offer and, instead, claimed “he would discontinue use

  immediately so he could support his family.” The district court decision that

  Rivera’s history of drug addiction did not require a shorter term of incarceration

  is clearly reasonable.

        Next, Rivera contends the district court put too much weight on the need to

  protect the public, when it was the government’s assessment that Rivera did not

  have a history of gun violence. This argument fails on several levels. First, it is

  the district court, not the parties, that is to assess the relevant § 3553(a)

  sentencing factors. Second, the record demonstrates the district court was well-

  versed in the parties’ arguments and understood the United States thought

  leniency was warranted in this case. Thus, the assertion the district court

  believed the parties’ arguments were irrelevant is directly contradicted by the

  transcript of the sentencing hearing. Third, the district court reasonably

  concluded leniency on the magnitude suggested by the parties would place the

  public in danger and fail to deter Rivera from committing future crimes. In

  essence, the district court correctly noted, the parties were asking it to take

  Rivera’s word that he would turn his life around. Given the repeat nature of

  Rivera’s illegal possession of firearms and his violations of the terms of his

  supervised release, the district court was entitled to give Rivera’s promises little

                                            12
Appellate Case: 22-6087    Document: 010110799915       Date Filed: 01/19/2023   Page: 13

  credence. Finally, as noted above, drugs and guns are a dangerous mix. Given

  Rivera’s history and characteristics, the district court was not required to wait for

  Rivera to use an illegally possessed firearm in a violent fashion before

  concluding a lengthy sentence was necessary to protect the public.

        Lastly, Rivera complains the district court did not adequately account for

  the length of his sentence on the June 16, 2021, felon-in-possession sentence in

  choosing to impose a twenty-four month consecutive sentence upon revocation of

  supervised release. Rivera Opening Br. at 11-12 (“Here, the court made no

  distinction between its assessment of the appropriate sentence for the felon in

  possession case and the revocation sentence, reflective or its failure to consider

  that its sentence in the new federal in possession case already accounted for the

  firearm possession, and already took into account Mr. Rivera’s recidivist

  history.”). This argument is surprising given that both Rivera and the

  government asked the district court to impose a package sentence of sixty

  months’ imprisonment to account for both the conviction and revocation. That is

  exactly what the district court did, although it set a combined sentence twenty-

  eight months longer than the parties requested. In any event, the record makes

  clear the district court did factor in both sentences imposed in arriving at a just

  and reasonable overall sentence. See United States v. Smith, 756 F.3d 1179,

  1183–84 (10th Cir. 2014). The advisory sentencing range for Rivera’s June 16,

  2021 felon-in-possession conviction was sixty-three to seventy-eight months’

  imprisonment. Based on a belief the Sentencing Guidelines overstated the

                                           13
Appellate Case: 22-6087   Document: 010110799915        Date Filed: 01/19/2023   Page: 14

  significance of Rivera’s marijuana conviction and the “perhaps harder-than-usual

  time” Rivera spent in county jail, the district court imposed a sentence for the

  felon-in-possession conviction just one month above the bottom of the advisory

  range. Nevertheless, having concluded that an overall sentence of sixty months

  did not come close to adequately protecting the public or deterring future

  criminal conduct on the part of Rivera, the district court imposed a lengthy

  sentence upon revocation. Thus, in contrast to Rivera’s assertion, when his

  revocation sentence is considered in context of his felon-in-possession sentence,

  the revocation sentence is all the more reasonable.

        The district court’s sentence is both reasoned and reasonable. Thus, the

  judgment entered by the United States District Court for the Western District of

  Oklahoma is hereby AFFIRMED.

                                            Entered for the Court

                                            Michael R. Murphy
                                            Circuit Judge

                                           14