United States v. David Clark
998 F.3d 363
| 8th Cir. | 2021Background
- Clark was convicted (bench trial) of bank robbery and sentenced to 60 months imprisonment plus 3 years supervised release. He began supervised release in January 2019.
- In April 2019 Clark stipulated to multiple supervised-release violations; the court revoked release and imposed 6 months custody followed by 24 months supervised release.
- Before his second release Clark agreed to a Residential Reentry Center (RRC) placement up to 120 days; he failed to report within 72 hours, had an unexplained absence, then was accepted into the RRC in September 2019.
- At the RRC Clark refused staff instructions, refused a urinalysis, smelled of synthetic marijuana, resisted a pat-down, appeared intoxicated, was discharged, failed to report to probation, and was arrested on a violator’s warrant in November 2019.
- The district court found four Grade C violations and calculated a Guidelines range of 6–12 months (criminal-history category IV) but imposed an upward variance to 24 months imprisonment with no supervised release to follow, citing noncompliance and public protection.
- On appeal Clark challenged (1) the adequacy of the court’s explanation for the upward variance, (2) alleged Tapia error (reliance on rehabilitation), and (3) substantive reasonableness of the 24‑month sentence; the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Clark's Argument | Government/District Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court inadequately explained its upward variance (procedural error) | The explanation was conclusory and insufficient to justify a 24‑month upward variance | Court considered §3583/§3553(a) factors, Clark’s repeated noncompliance, and public‑safety need; explanation and record suffice | No procedural (plain) error; explanation adequate given court’s familiarity with record and parties’ arguments |
| Whether the sentence violated Tapia by lengthening custody to enable rehabilitation | District court impermissibly considered Clark’s rehabilitation needs when increasing the sentence | The court only made passing comments about treatment availability; primary rationale was punishment/public protection | No Tapia error (and no plain error): remarks were encouragement, not an intent to lengthen sentence for rehabilitation |
| Whether the 24‑month sentence is substantively unreasonable (weighting of §3553 factors; percentage variance) | The variance (400% over bottom of range) is excessive and reflects clear error in weighting factors | District court afforded wide discretion, considered relevant §3583 factors, and justified upward variance based on repeated violations and risk to public | Not substantively unreasonable; district court did not clearly err in weighing factors; percentage argument rejected |
| Whether large upward variances for Grade C violations undermine Guidelines gradation and consistency | High variances subvert the Guidelines’ gradation and nationwide consistency | Guidelines are advisory; individualized assessment may justify outside‑range sentences if sufficiently supported | Rejected — court may exceed Guidelines with adequate justification and individualized §3583 consideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (rejects rigid percentage formulas for departures and explains sentencing‑reasonableness review)
- Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319 (2011) (prohibits lengthening prison term to secure rehabilitation)
- United States v. Johnson, 827 F.3d 740 (8th Cir. 2016) (deferential abuse‑of‑discretion standard for revocation sentencing)
- United States v. Hall, 931 F.3d 694 (8th Cir. 2019) (procedural/substantive review framework in revocation context)
- United States v. DeMarrias, 895 F.3d 570 (8th Cir. 2018) (sufficiency of district court explanation for variance on appeal)
- United States v. Holdsworth, 830 F.3d 779 (8th Cir. 2016) (plain‑error review of forfeited Tapia claims)
- United States v. Werlein, 664 F.3d 1143 (8th Cir. 2011) (no Tapia error where court did not express intent to lengthen sentence for rehab)
- United States v. Trung Dang, 907 F.3d 561 (8th Cir. 2018) (rejects percentage‑based challenge to variances)
- United States v. Kreitinger, 576 F.3d 500 (8th Cir. 2009) (upholding upward variance based on repeated supervised‑release violations)
- United States v. Bear Robe, 521 F.3d 909 (8th Cir. 2008) (consideration of §3553(a) factors in revocation sentencing)