United States v. Hatanaka
703 F. App'x 695
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Hatanaka pleaded guilty in 2010 to possession with intent to distribute cocaine base; received 70 months imprisonment and five years supervised release.
- First supervised-release revocation (Aug 2015): used halfway-house phone to threaten his wife; sentenced to 8 months custody and 4 years supervised release.
- Began second supervised release in April 2016, ordered to reside at a halfway house; absconded in August 2016, went to his wife’s house, damaged property, doused clothes with bleach, and repeatedly contacted her.
- Remained at large for about four months; this conduct prompted revocation of his second supervised release.
- Advisory Guidelines range for the revocation was 6–12 months; statutory maximum available (after prior revocation) was 28 months; district court imposed an upward variance to the full 28 months and declined to reimpose supervised release.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural reasonableness — did the district court adequately consider §3553(a) and explain a variance? | Hatanaka: court failed to explain consideration of §3553(a), didn’t justify rejecting Guidelines, and relied on improper factors. | Government: district court’s explanation (recidivism, dangerousness, noncompliance) showed consideration of §3553(a); no ritualistic recitation required. | Affirmed — no plain procedural error; reasons related to §3553(a) and sufficed without magic words. |
| Whether court improperly considered factors already accounted for by the Guidelines | Hatanaka: district court relied on conduct already reflected in the Guidelines. | Government: courts may consider facts already in Guidelines if they justify a variance and need not give an overly detailed explanation. | Affirmed — district court has broad discretion; explanation need not be detailed and was adequate. |
| Substantive reasonableness — whether 28-month sentence was an abuse of discretion | Hatanaka: 28 months is substantively unreasonable given Guideline range. | Government: defendant’s repeated domestic violence arrests, absconding, and second revocation justified an upward variance to protect public and deter recidivism. | Affirmed — sentence reasonable under §3553(a); district court did not abuse discretion. |
| Standard of appellate review for unpreserved objections | Hatanaka: challenges were not raised below. | Government: plain-error review governs, which is a heavy burden for appellant. | Affirmed — plain-error standard applied; appellant failed to show plain error. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Steele, 603 F.3d 803 (10th Cir. 2010) (review standard for above-Guidelines sentence and consideration of factors)
- United States v. A.B., 529 F.3d 1275 (10th Cir. 2008) (procedural reasonableness requires consideration of Chapter 7 guidelines and §3553(a))
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (procedural and substantive reasonableness standards; deference to district court for variances)
- United States v. Kelley, 359 F.3d 1302 (10th Cir. 2004) (no requirement to recite each §3553(a) factor verbatim)
- United States v. Pinson, 542 F.3d 822 (10th Cir. 2008) (district court need address material, non-frivolous arguments by defendant)
- United States v. Alapizco-Valenzuela, 546 F.3d 1208 (10th Cir. 2008) (district courts may rely on facts already reflected in Guidelines when justifying a variance)
- United States v. Romero, 491 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2007) (plain-error review is a heavy burden for appellants)