Court Opinion

ID: 9918299
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-12 16:01:36.674719+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:03:04.939290
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 23-1631
                         ___________________________

                              United States of America

                         lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                            v.

                                 Jacquiere Burnside

                       lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                       ____________

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

                          Submitted: November 13, 2023
                             Filed: January 12, 2024
                                  [Unpublished]
                                 ____________

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

PER CURIAM.

       Jacquiere Burnside pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm
in 2018 and was sentenced to 36 months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised
release. See United States v. Burnside, 795 F. App’x 475 (8th Cir. 2020) (per curiam)
(affirming judgment). He was released from prison in March 2021 and commenced
supervised release.
       Burnside’s release conditions were modified three times to require his
placement in a residential reentry center following (1) his commission of domestic
abuse assault and his failure to comply with substance abuse testing, (2) his failure
to find suitable housing, and (3) his use of alcohol, his renewed failure to comply
with testing, and his operation of a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and
in the absence of a valid driver’s license. Burnside was also ordered to spend a
weekend in jail, to not contact the domestic assault victim, and to submit to remote
alcohol testing. He was most recently discharged in November 2022.

        Burnside’s probation officer filed a petition to revoke supervision in February
2023, alleging violations related to his failure to comply with substance abuse testing,
to notify probation of a residence change, to maintain employment, to report as
instructed, to truthfully answer inquiries, and to follow his probation officer’s
instructions. The district court1 found that he had committed all of the alleged
violations, the most serious of which was Grade C. With a criminal history category
of III, Burnside’s U.S. Sentencing Guidelines range of imprisonment upon revocation
was five to eleven months’ imprisonment. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a). The district
court sentenced Burnside to eleven months’ imprisonment with one year of
supervised release to follow, rejecting his proposal of an above-Guidelines term of
imprisonment with no further supervised release.

      Burnside argues that the district court abused its discretion when it imposed
supervised release. See United States v. Barber, 4 F.4th 689, 691 (8th Cir. 2021) (per
curiam) (standard of review). He contends that supervised release will not aid his
rehabilitation or reintegration into society and that another two or three months of
imprisonment would better reflect the seriousness of the violations and better serve
the purposes of deterring his further misconduct and in protecting the public. The

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

                                          -2-
district court considered Burnside’s arguments, as well as the leniency he had
received after committing domestic assault and driving while under the influence of
alcohol, his excuses for failing to comply with the conditions of supervision, and his
“unwilling[ness] to even submit to the simplest supervision.” Revocation Tr. 32.
Whatever Burnside’s preferences might be, the district court did not abuse its
discretion in deciding that the appropriate revocation sentence in this case included
a term of supervised release. See Barber, 4 F.4th at 692 (district court did not abuse
its discretion in ordering further supervised release as part of the defendant’s
revocation sentence); United States v. Hajek, 638 F. App’x 581, 582 (8th Cir. 2016)
(per curiam) (same); United States v. Houle, 630 F. App’x 642, 643–44 (8th Cir.
2016) (per curiam) (same).

      The judgment is affirmed.
                     ______________________________

                                         -3-