United States v. Tonney Valure
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 12361
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- Defendant Tonney Valure committed an armed bank robbery on July 30, 2013 while on federal supervised release for two prior 1991 federal bank robbery convictions.
- The two prior convictions had originally been sentenced to concurrent terms, with supervised release; jurisdiction for revocation was transferred to the Eastern District of Arkansas.
- In the instant case (No. 4:13CR00266) Valure was sentenced to 63 months’ imprisonment on September 8, 2015 (within a 51–63 month Guidelines range).
- The district court revoked supervised release in the two prior cases and imposed revocation terms of 36 months (No. 4:10CR00236) and 24 months (No. 4:92CR00007).
- The district court ordered the 36-month revocation sentence to run consecutive to the 63-month instant sentence, and the 24-month revocation sentence to run consecutive to the 36-month revocation sentence (no further supervised release imposed).
- Valure appealed, arguing the revocation sentences should run concurrently rather than consecutively; the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Valure's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by ordering revocation sentences consecutive to the instant sentence and to each other | The revocation sentences should run concurrent to the instant sentence (and/or concurrent to each other) | District court has discretion under 18 U.S.C. § 3584 and may order consecutive sentences; consecutive revocations are permissible | Affirmed — court did not abuse its discretion; consecutive sentences are lawful and substantively reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Shepard, 657 F.3d 682 (8th Cir.) (standard of review for revocation sentencing is abuse of discretion)
- United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 919 (8th Cir.) (same standard cited)
- United States v. Baker, 491 F.3d 421 (8th Cir.) (district court has discretion to impose consecutive sentences)
- United States v. Cotroneo, 89 F.3d 510 (8th Cir.) (§ 3584 permits consecutive revocation sentences even for previously concurrent supervised-release terms)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (review requires checking for procedural errors and substantive reasonableness)
- United States v. Robinson, 516 F.3d 716 (8th Cir.) (within-Guidelines sentences carry a presumption of substantive reasonableness)