United States v. David Phinney
668 F. App'x 195
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- Phinney challenged his revocation sentence imposed after violations of supervised release.
- He began a five-year supervised-release term for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and was arrested for multiple release violations.
- He admitted to violating the mandatory condition and the notification and association conditions.
- Violations stemmed from a fight resulting in a felony second-degree assault and riding in a felon-containing vehicle stopped by police.
- The district court calculated a guideline range of 46–57 months and imposed 48 months’ imprisonment followed by ten years of supervised release.
- This court reviews revocation sentences for procedural errors de novo and abuse of discretion on substantive reasonableness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural error in considering statutory factors | Phinney argues district court failed to consider factors. | Phinney contends court adequately considered factors. | No plain error; factors were considered. |
| Open-court articulation of reasons | Phinney argues inadequate open-court statement of reasons. | Court provided sufficient reasoned basis. | No plain error; reasons stated were adequate. |
| Substantive reasonableness of sentence | Phinney challenges length as substantively unreasonable. | Court did not abuse discretion given history and violence. | Sentence not substantively unreasonable; within discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard for revocation sentence review; procedure first, then reasonableness)
- United States v. Dace, 660 F.3d 1011 (8th Cir. 2011) (procedural error review for revocation sentences)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (Supreme Court 2007) (procedural-error framework; need not prove every factor is listed)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (Supreme Court 2007) (requirement to state reasons in open court; sufficiency standard)
- Olson v. United States, 716 F.3d 1052 (8th Cir. 2013) (adequacy of explanation for sentencing factors)
- United States v. Timberlake, 679 F.3d 1008 (8th Cir. 2012) (abuse-of-discretion review for substantive reasonableness)