United States v. Nathan Melton
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1701
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Melton pled guilty in 2008 to bank fraud and was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment with 5 years of supervised release and restitution of $9,588.
- Upon reduction to time served in 2010, Melton began supervised release with a 120-day residential reentry center (RRC) placement and rules to follow the center’s regulations.
- The first revocation occurred in June 2010 for violations including failure to comply with RRC rules, job-seeking, and treatment; he received six months’ imprisonment with a renewed 120-day RRC term.
- Melton’s release in December 2010 again placed him in an RRC; on April 4, 2011 his supervised release was revoked for ten violations, including center-rule violations, failure to seek employment, and failure to pay restitution.
- A second revocation sentence of six months with a renewed supervised release and a 120-day RRC was imposed; Melton appeals the revocation and the 120-day RRC condition.
- The panel affirms the revocation and the special RRC condition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Melton’s violations supported revocation as non-technical. | Melton argues violations were technical and should not support revocation. | Court found violations showed a pervasive unwillingness to comply, not merely technical. | Revocation within the district court’s discretion; upheld. |
| Whether failure to seek employment and to pay restitution justified revocation. | Noncompliance with employment and restitution payments supports revocation. | Defendant did not make good faith employment efforts; restitution unpaid. | Valid grounds for revocation; affirmed. |
| Whether the imposition of a third 120-day residential reentry center condition was plain error. | Melton contends condition is improper given past failures and short sentence. | Court acted within wide discretion under §3583(d) and related policy statements. | No plain error; condition within discretionary authority; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Rhone, 647 F.3d 777 (8th Cir. 2011) (abuse of discretion standard for revocation of supervised release)
- United States v. Burkhalter, 588 F.2d 604 (8th Cir. 1978) (persistent noncompliance not technical; supports revocation)
- United States v. Reed, 573 F.2d 1020 (8th Cir. 1978) (technical violations should not necessarily trigger revocation)
- United States v. Montgomery, 532 F.3d 811 (8th Cir. 2008) (good faith employment effort relevant to restitution)
- United States v. Leigh, 276 F.3d 1011 (8th Cir. 2002) (per curiam; employment restitution considerations)
- United States v. McFarlin, 535 F.3d 808 (8th Cir. 2008) (residence in reentry center permitted under guidelines)
- United States v. Vanhorn, 641 F.3d 296 (8th Cir. 2011) (upholding residential reentry center as reasonable condition)
- United States v. Boston, 494 F.3d 660 (8th Cir. 2007) (conditions must be related to §3553 factors and permissible under §3583(d))
- United States v. Curry, 627 F.3d 312 (8th Cir. 2010) (plain error review for unobjected-to special conditions)
- United States v. Garcia, 646 F.3d 1061 (8th Cir. 2011) (plain error standard for review of conditions)