Court Opinion

ID: 9926294
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-24 16:01:44.961383+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:21.443758
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 22-3287
                         ___________________________

                              United States of America,

                         lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,

                                            v.

                                William Edward Sun,

                       lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant.
                                        ____________

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

                            Submitted: October 16, 2023
                              Filed: January 24, 2024
                                   [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before SMITH, Chief Judge, LOKEN and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
                              ____________

PER CURIAM.

      William Sun challenges a sentence imposed by the district court after a second
revocation of supervised release. The district court* varied upward from the advisory

      *
        The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa.
guideline range and imposed a term of twenty-seven months’ imprisonment. Sun
argues the sentence was unreasonable, but we conclude that there was no abuse of
discretion.

       In 2012, Sun pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, and
distribution of methamphetamine within a protected location. The district court
sentenced him to 120 months’ imprisonment followed by a six-year term of
supervised release. Sun completed his term of imprisonment and began his first term
of supervised release on April 5, 2021.

      On July 29, 2021, the district court revoked Sun’s supervised release because
he violated several conditions. The court found that Sun lied to his probation officer
about his residence, absconded from a halfway house, and used a controlled substance.
The court sentenced Sun to eleven months’ imprisonment with a five-year term of
supervised release to follow.

        On June 22, 2022, Sun began his second term of supervised release. He
committed four violations in the first month of his release. First, he failed to contact
his probation officer on time when he was released from imprisonment. Second, he
left the judicial district without permission on July 5, 2022. Third, he failed to comply
with substance abuse treatment by absconding from the treatment facility on July 23,
2022. Fourth, he failed to follow his probation officer’s directive to remain at the
treatment facility.

       The district court convened a revocation proceeding, and Sun admitted all four
violations. The court determined an advisory guideline range of six to twelve months’
imprisonment, but sentenced Sun to twenty-seven months’ imprisonment with no
supervised release to follow. The court found that the advisory guideline range was
“not even remotely accurate” as a measure of appropriate punishment. The court
explained that Sun was a violent and dangerous person who refused to follow rules

                                          -2-
throughout his adult life. Although the court gave Sun credit for turning himself in
to authorities after the most recent violations, the court also found that he showed a
continuous disregard for court orders and directives from the probation office.

       Sun argues that the sentence was unreasonable. We review the reasonableness
of a revocation sentence under the same deferential abuse-of-discretion standard that
applies to initial sentencing proceedings. United States v. Elbert, 20 F.4th 413, 416
(8th Cir. 2021); see Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Sun contends that
the district court made a clear error in judgment by varying upward to a sentence of
twenty-seven months’ imprisonment. He argues that his “violations amount to little
more than failing to comply with the terms of supervised release” and did not
constitute “violent offenses or new law violations.” He also cites alleged mitigating
circumstances—namely, that he left the judicial district for the constructive purpose
of seeking substance abuse treatment, and that he absconded from treatment to see his
critically ill wife. Sun also argues that he can positively contribute to society by using
his college education and skills to create an agricultural program for his Indian tribe.

       Sun’s arguments are insufficient to establish an abuse of discretion. The district
court has wide latitude to weigh the relevant sentencing factors. Where a defendant
on supervised release demonstrates a pattern of incorrigibility on supervised release,
the court may determine that the defendant is not amenable to supervision. In such
a case, the court reasonably may vary upward from the advisory term of imprisonment
and then discharge the offender from supervision. Elbert, 20 F.4th at 416. Sun served
two terms of supervised release and violated the conditions of release almost
immediately. In fashioning a sentence, the court permissibly placed greater weight
on Sun’s continuous disregard for court orders and his history of noncompliance. The
revocation sentence was reasonable in light of Sun’s history and characteristics.

      The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
                     ______________________________

                                           -3-