United States v. Larry Dean Rederick
709 F. App'x 377
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- In 2014 Larry Dean Rederick pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a prohibited person under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) and was sentenced to two months’ imprisonment plus supervised release.
- After additional state custody, Rederick initially complied with supervised release for about a year, maintained employment, and ran his own businesses.
- In spring 2017 the probation office petitioned to revoke supervision for drug-related violations; Rederick admitted three Grade C violations involving methamphetamine.
- At the revocation hearing the district court revoked supervised release and sentenced Rederick to 14 months’ imprisonment (top of the Chapter 7 Guidelines range) plus 22 months’ supervised release.
- Rederick appealed, arguing the revocation sentence was substantively unreasonable because the court failed to meaningfully consider his methamphetamine addiction, his acknowledgement of the problem, and his prior period of success on supervision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the revocation sentence was substantively unreasonable | Rederick: court failed to adequately consider addiction, his admission, and prior success | Government/District Court: court considered § 3553(a) factors and gave reasons; within-Guidelines sentence presumed reasonable | The within-Guidelines 14-month revocation sentence is reasonable; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Growden, 663 F.3d 982 (8th Cir. 2011) (sets abuse-of-discretion standard for revocation-sentence review)
- United States v. Kreitinger, 576 F.3d 500 (8th Cir. 2009) (identifies when a district court abuses discretion in sentencing)
- United States v. Hum, 766 F.3d 925 (8th Cir. 2014) (district court need not recite specific § 3553(a) findings; evidence of consideration suffices)
- United States v. Franklin, 397 F.3d 604 (8th Cir. 2005) (district court’s familiarity with defendant’s history/characteristics from prior proceedings is relevant)
- United States v. White Face, 383 F.3d 733 (8th Cir. 2004) (court must give some reason for its sentencing decision)
- United States v. Garcia, 512 F.3d 1004 (8th Cir. 2008) (presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (supports presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences)