United States v. Robert Walters
667 F. App'x 876
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- Robert Allen Walters began supervised release in Nov. 2014 after federal convictions and imprisonment for firearm offenses and mailing threats.
- On Apr. 10, 2015, Walters failed to report to his South Dakota probation office and later was arrested in Pennsylvania; he admitted the violation.
- Guidelines range for revocation exposure was 7–13 months (for 2002 convictions) and 8–14 months (for the in-prison conviction); statutory maximum for revocation was 24 months.
- At revocation hearing, defense urged that roughly 70 days of pre-hearing confinement and Walters’s employment and law-abiding conduct warranted a lesser sanction.
- The district court reviewed Walters’s criminal history, considered the § 3553(a) factors and the Guidelines, and imposed the statutory maximum 24-month revocation sentence.
- Walters appealed, arguing the 24-month sentence was substantively unreasonable; the court of appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 24-month revocation sentence was substantively unreasonable | Walters: sentence greater than necessary given employment, good conduct while off supervision, and ~70 days already confined | Government: district court reasonably weighed criminal history and § 3553(a) factors and chose imprisonment up to statutory max | Affirmed — sentence not substantively unreasonable; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard for appellate review of sentencing under abuse-of-discretion)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (district court need only give enough reasoning to show consideration of parties’ arguments)
- United States v. O'Connor, 567 F.3d 395 (8th Cir. 2009) (when no procedural error is claimed, appellate review proceeds to substantive-reasonableness analysis)
- United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (deference to district court sentences; reversal for substantive unreasonableness is unusual)
- United States v. Farmer, 647 F.3d 1175 (8th Cir. 2011) (identifies when a district court abuses discretion in sentencing)