United States v. Keatings
787 F.3d 1197
| 8th Cir. | 2015Background
- Kenneth Keatings pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)); statutory maximum 10 years; Guidelines range at initial sentencing was 30–37 months.
- At initial sentencing the court offered Keatings a choice: 1 year and 1 day imprisonment or 5 years probation with strict conditions and an explicit warning that violation could result in revocation and up to the 10‑year statutory maximum; Keatings chose probation.
- Probation conditions included no drug or alcohol use and a 10:00 PM–5:00 AM curfew. Two months later the probation office reported violations: multiple sweat‑patch tests positive for cocaine and an arrest for DUI after admitted alcohol consumption.
- At the revocation hearing the probation officer testified to five cocaine uses and one alcohol use; the probation office recommended a 33‑month revocation term based on Chapter 7 of the Guidelines.
- The district court revoked probation and imposed the statutory maximum 10‑year sentence, explaining it was enforcing the warning given at initial sentencing and citing Keatings’s criminal history, failure to comply with probation, and § 3553 factors; the court later reopened the hearing to further record its reasons.
- Keatings appealed, arguing (1) procedural error for failing to address Chapter 7/Guidelines and adequately explain an above‑Guidelines revocation sentence and (2) substantive unreasonableness (abuse of discretion), claiming the court improperly punished him for contempt and failed to weigh mitigating factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Keatings) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural error: failure to consider Chapter 7/Guidelines and § 3553(a) or explain departure | Court did not mention Chapter 7 or adequately explain departure from Guidelines; failed to properly consider § 3553 factors | Revocation packet (including Chapter 7 worksheet) was before the court; court considered § 3553 factors and explained reasons for the statutory maximum | No plain error: court had Chapter 7 materials, considered § 3553 factors, and provided a reasoned basis for sentence |
| Substantive unreasonableness: abuse of discretion in imposing statutory maximum | Sentence was disproportionate; court gave insufficient weight to mitigating factors and acted from "emotional disgust" or contempt | Court relied on defendant’s quick recidivism, criminal history, violation of probation conditions, and deterrence/protection concerns—proper § 3553 considerations | Sentence not substantively unreasonable: district court did not abuse discretion and permissibly weighed relevant factors to impose 10 years |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Thunder, 553 F.3d 605 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard for reviewing revocation sentences and consideration of violations)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (procedural requirements for sentencing explanations and § 3553(a) consideration)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (appellate review of sentencing explanations)
- United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543 (8th Cir. 2005) (plain‑error standard for preserved/unpreserved sentencing objections)
- United States v. Maxwell, 664 F.3d 240 (8th Cir. 2011) (prejudice requirement under plain‑error review for sentencing)
- United States v. Burnette, 518 F.3d 942 (8th Cir. 2008) (forfeiture of procedural sentencing objections)
- United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (standards for substantive‑reasonableness review)
- United States v. Tatum, 760 F.3d 696 (7th Cir. 2014) (discussing limits on a judge’s advance commitment to a specific revocation penalty)
- United States v. Smith, 770 F.3d 653 (7th Cir. 2014) (permissible consideration of prior revocations when sentencing for subsequent violations)
- United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921 (8th Cir. 2006) (upward variance for repeated supervised‑release violations)
- United States v. Robinson, 516 F.3d 716 (8th Cir. 2008) (district court must show a reasoned basis for sentencing)
- United States v. Battiest, 553 F.3d 1132 (8th Cir. 2009) (court need not address every argument or recite each § 3553 factor)