United States v. Joshua Randolph
669 F. App'x 343
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- Defendant Joshua P. Randolph pleaded guilty (2009) to being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to 77 months’ imprisonment followed by three years’ supervised release.
- While on supervised release (begun January 2014), Randolph had multiple violation reports for drug use (PCP, alcohol, marijuana), missed drug testing and monthly reports, and alleged violations of law.
- Randolph admitted to the supervised-release violations except the alleged law violation; the district court found the stipulated violations proved and declined to decide the alleged law violation.
- With a criminal-history category VI, the Guidelines range for revocation was 8–14 months; Randolph requested a within-Guidelines sentence, citing positive changes (college courses, landscaping business).
- The district court imposed a 24-month revocation sentence (the statutory maximum under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3)), citing Randolph’s criminal history, ongoing drug use, repeated violations, and danger to the community; no further supervised release was imposed.
- Randolph appealed, arguing the 24-month sentence was substantively unreasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Randolph's Argument | Government/District Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 24-month revocation sentence was substantively unreasonable | Court failed to consider all § 3553(a) factors and over-weighted criminal history; mitigating evidence (education, business) warranted a lower sentence | Court considered relevant § 3553(a) factors and permissibly weighed criminal history, violations, and danger to community to justify an above-Guidelines sentence | Affirmed — sentence not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard of review for revocation sentences)
- United States v. Goodon, 742 F.3d 373 (8th Cir. 2014) (grounds for abuse of discretion in sentencing)
- United States v. Maxwell, 664 F.3d 240 (8th Cir. 2011) (interpretation of abuse-of-discretion standards)
- United States v. Hum, 766 F.3d 925 (8th Cir. 2014) (satisfaction that addressing some § 3553(a) considerations indicates awareness of the statute)
- United States v. White Face, 383 F.3d 733 (8th Cir. 2004) (same principle regarding sentencing consideration)