United States v. Jon Misquadace
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 2493
8th Cir.2015Background
- Jon Misquadace pleaded guilty to failing to pay legal child support under 18 U.S.C. § 228(a)(3); initially sentenced to five years’ probation and ~$54,613 restitution.
- First revocation petition (June 2013) led to admission he failed to assign tribal per capita payments; condition to assign payments was removed and he was ordered to pay $200/month.
- Second revocation petition (April 2014) alleged failure to report a change of residence; Misquadace admitted the violation and explained homelessness and alcohol addiction but asserted rehabilitation efforts.
- Violation classified Grade C; advisory Guidelines range for revocation was 8–14 months’ imprisonment.
- District court revoked probation and sentenced Misquadace to the statutory maximum 24 months imprisonment and 1 year supervised release, reducing restitution slightly; Misquadace appealed as substantively unreasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 24-month revocation sentence was substantively unreasonable | Misquadace: court failed to consider mitigating evidence and over-weighted improper evidence (payment history) | Government: district court properly weighed §3553(a) factors, including payment history relevant to supervision and restitution | Affirmed — district court did not abuse discretion; payment history properly considered and weight was within discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review for revocation sentencing follows initial sentencing standards)
- United States v. Gonzalez, 742 F.3d 815 (8th Cir. 2014) (district courts have wide latitude to weigh §3553(a) factors)
- United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (defining abuse-of-discretion categories for substantive reasonableness)
- United States v. Kane, 639 F.3d 1121 (8th Cir. 2011) (substantive review corrects unreasonable weighing decisions)
- United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (discussing role of substantive review in correcting sentencing weighing errors)