United States v. Juan Johnson
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 11859
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- Juan Johnson pled guilty to wire fraud (18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 2) in 2011, was sentenced to time served and 3 years supervised release, and ordered to pay restitution.
- Johnson repeatedly violated supervised release in 2012; release revoked twice earlier, and a new 30‑month term was imposed after one revocation.
- Arrested on December 26, 2012 (domestic violence/resisting arrest) and involved in a February 5, 2014 jail altercation; both incidents led to a supervised‑release violation report and testimony at the revocation hearing.
- At the February 3, 2015 revocation hearing the district court found Grade B violation for the December 2012 conduct and Grade C for the February 2014 conduct, revoked supervised release, and imposed 24 months’ imprisonment to run consecutive to any state sentence.
- Johnson moved pro se for reassignment and replacement counsel alleging bias and ineffective assistance; the district court denied recusal after allowing time to file a fuller motion, which Johnson did not do.
Issues
| Issue | Johnson's Argument | Government/Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural sufficiency of revocation sentence | Court failed to expressly recite § 3553(a) factors and unclear on violation grade | District court considered relevant history, conduct, and sentencing goals; specific recitation not required | Affirmed — procedurally sufficient (court considered factors; grades stated) |
| Substantive reasonableness of 24‑month sentence | 24 months is substantively unreasonable given guidelines and circumstances | Sentence within statutory limits; motivated by repeated violations and violence toward officers | Affirmed — sentence not substantively unreasonable |
| Consecutive sentencing to future state term | Unreasonable to order federal revocation sentence consecutive to not‑yet‑imposed state sentence | Court has discretion to order consecutive to future state sentence; Guideline §7B1.3(f) permits consecutive terms | Affirmed — consecutive order permissible and not an abuse of discretion |
| Recusal and ineffective assistance of counsel | Judge Harpool should have recused for bias; counsel acted improperly re: reassignment and failed to object | Pro se letter insufficient, no legally sufficient affidavit filed; attorney‑ineffectiveness claim not properly raised on direct appeal | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion on recusal; ineffective assistance claim not considered on direct appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Richey, 758 F.3d 999 (8th Cir. 2014) (standard of review for supervised‑release revocation sentences)
- Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694 (2000) (revocation sentence relates to original offense)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for sentencing review)
- United States v. Ceballos‑Santa Cruz, 756 F.3d 635 (8th Cir. 2014) (courts may rely on actual conduct to classify violations)
- United States v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107 (8th Cir. 2008) (no mechanical recitation of every § 3553(a) factor required on revocation)
- Setser v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 1463 (2012) (district court may order federal sentence consecutive to as‑yet‑unimposed state sentence)
- United States v. Oaks, 606 F.3d 530 (8th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for judge’s refusal to recuse)
- United States v. Sanchez‑Gonzalez, 643 F.3d 626 (8th Cir. 2011) (ineffective‑assistance claims normally brought under § 2255; only exceptional cases on direct appeal)