United States v. Christopher Hum
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 17456
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- Hum pled guilty to conspiracy to manufacture 500 grams or more of methamphetamine on Aug 15, 2006, and was sentenced to four years' imprisonment followed by five years' supervised release.
- Hum began supervised release on Jan 8, 2010 and faced a probation-violation petition on Sep 7, 2012 based on missed drug tests, positive tests, a “whizzonator” attempt, and an assault arrest.
- A status hearing was held Feb 4, 2013; Hum submitted a positive urine sample for marijuana at that hearing, leading to a modification of supervised-release conditions to place him in a residential re-entry center for six months.
- A revocation hearing on May 31, 2013 found multiple violations, including prior positives and failure to attend treatment, triggering mandatory revocation under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g).
- Hum admitted to all violations and requested residential-reentry-center placement; the court revoked supervised release and ordered 60 months’ imprisonment with no supervised release to follow.
- After the May hearing, Hum violated terms again (drinking, Adderall use); the district court resentenced him on Aug 30, 2013 to 60 months in the Bureau of Prisons, explaining the need for deterrence and adherence to court promises.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the revocation sentence was substantively reasonable. | Hum asserts the court relied on an improper “promise/threat” and failed to account for §3553(a) factors. | Hum contends the sentence is excessive given Grade C violations and insufficient consideration of deterrence and rehabilitation. | Affirmative; sentence deemed not unreasonable given repeated violations and need for deterrence. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Merrival, 521 F.3d 889 (8th Cir. 2008) (abuse-of-discretion standard for revocation sentences)
- United States v. Kreitinger, 576 F.3d 500 (8th Cir. 2009) (weighing factors under § 3553(a) in revocation)
- United States v. Franklin, 397 F.3d 604 (8th Cir. 2005) (no need to list every § 3553(a) factor; evidence of consideration suffices)
- United States v. White Face, 383 F.3d 733 (8th Cir. 2004) (court need not mechanically list factors; must show consideration)
- United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921 (8th Cir. 2006) (60-month revocation affirmed due to multiple violations and overall conduct)