United States v. Kenneth Haag
703 F. App'x 448
8th Cir.2017Background
- Kenneth D. Haag pled guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) (interstate transmission of a threat) and was sentenced to 33 months imprisonment and three years supervised release.
- Haag repeatedly violated supervised-release conditions (mental-health treatment, medication compliance, substance-abuse testing, and probation officer directions).
- After initial modification of conditions, the court revoked release once and imposed 10 months imprisonment and two years supervised release with special conditions: mental-health evaluation/treatment, mandatory prescribed medications, and residence in a Residential Reentry Center (RRC) up to 120 days.
- Haag was removed from the RRC shortly after release for noncompliance and threatening behavior; the court revoked supervised release again and imposed 10 months imprisonment and one year supervised release.
- Haag appealed, arguing the sentence was greater than necessary and the district court failed to consider his preferred alternatives (e.g., placement at the Penn Center).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 10-month revocation sentence was greater than necessary | Haag: sentence excessive given alternatives and treatment preferences | Government/District Court: within-Guidelines sentence reasonable given repeated noncompliance and danger to community | Court: Affirmed; within-Guidelines sentence presumptively reasonable and not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether evidence supported revocation for failing to take prescribed medication | Haag: disputed requirement and asserted treatment preference | Court: found by preponderance that Haag repeatedly refused medication despite diagnosis and prior warnings | Court: Violation proved; supports revocation |
| Whether court failed to consider less-restrictive placements (e.g., Penn Center) | Haag: court overlooked or insufficiently considered alternatives | Court: considered alternatives but found them speculative/uncontrolled and unsuitable given removal from RRC and public-safety concerns | Court: No abuse of discretion; alternatives inadequate to protect community |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Frosch, 758 F.3d 1012 (8th Cir. 2014) (standard of review for supervised-release revocation is abuse of discretion)
- United States v. Petreikis, 551 F.3d 822 (8th Cir. 2009) (within-Guidelines sentences receive a presumption of substantive reasonableness)
- United States v. Melton, 666 F.3d 513 (8th Cir. 2012) (breaking reentry-center rules can warrant revocation when it shows pervasive unwillingness to comply)
- United States v. Burkhalter, 588 F.2d 604 (8th Cir. 1978) (probation revocation appropriate where violations show inability to follow rehabilitation program)