United States v. Joel Kimball
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 13635
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- Joel Kimball pleaded guilty in 2008 to failure to register as a sex offender, served 24 months, and began a 10‑year supervised release.
- In 2014 Kimball tested positive for drugs; the district court revoked release, sentenced him to 8 months and 4 more years supervised release, and ordered up to 120 days at a residential reentry center.
- Upon his 2015 release to the reentry center, Kimball was argumentative, refused to sign paperwork, failed to turn over his paycheck, missed a meeting with a probation officer, and was repeatedly uncooperative with staff.
- The reentry center found multiple rule violations; Kimball admitted some violations and disputed others; the government moved to revoke supervised release based on these violations and conduct.
- The district court revoked supervision based on undisputed violations, calculated an advisory revocation Guideline range of 4–10 months, and sentenced Kimball to 8 months (within the range) plus 4 years supervised release and reimposed the reentry‑center condition.
- Kimball appealed, arguing (1) revocation was an abuse of discretion, (2) his sentence was unreasonable, and (3) it was error to reimpose the reentry‑center residency condition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court abused discretion in revoking supervised release | Kimball: violations were mitigation‑worthy, partly caused by frustration and prior statements that early release from the center was possible | Govt/District: Kimball repeatedly refused to comply with facility rules and probation, showing unwillingness to follow conditions | Affirmed: court did not abuse discretion; evidence showed pervasive unwillingness to comply |
| Whether the district court reasonably concluded rule violations warranted revocation | Kimball: violations were technical, not criminal or dangerous | Govt: prior incremental sanctions failed; pattern shows unwillingness to rehabilitate | Affirmed: revocation permissible given history and conduct |
| Whether the 8‑month sentence was unreasonable | Kimball: sentence excessive for the conduct and history | Govt/District: within advisory Guideline range and justified by §3553(a) factors | Affirmed: within range, presumptively reasonable under abuse‑of‑discretion review |
| Whether reimposing residency at a reentry center was error | Kimball: illogical after finding he wouldn’t follow the center’s rules | Govt/District: center can facilitate reentry; court considered history and §3553(a) factors | Affirmed (plain‑error reviewed): not plain error to require another temporary reentry‑center stint |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Reed, 573 F.2d 1020 (8th Cir.) (revocation should not be reflexive response to technical violations)
- United States v. Burkhalter, 588 F.2d 604 (8th Cir.) (revocation permissible where defendant shows pervasive unwillingness to follow rehabilitation)
- United States v. Melton, 666 F.3d 513 (8th Cir.) (standard for revocation based on unwillingness to comply; upholding reentry‑center condition)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (reasonableness review of sentencing under abuse‑of‑discretion)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (presumption of reasonableness for within‑Guideline sentences)
- United States v. Scales, 735 F.3d 1048 (8th Cir.) (application of presumption of reasonableness to Guideline sentences)