United States v. Longs

• Decision Date: 27 November 2015
• Docket Number: No. 15–1820.,15–1820.
• Citation: 806 F.3d 1001 (Mem)
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee v. Michael J. LONGS, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

806 F.3d 1001 (Mem)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee

v.Michael J. LONGS, Defendant–Appellant.

No. 15–1820.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 16, 2015.

Filed: Nov. 27, 2015.

Bruce Gillan, AUSA, Lincoln, NE, for Plaintiff–Appellee.

Alan Stoler, Omaha, NE, for Defendant–Appellant.

[Published]

PER CURIAM.

Defendant Michael Longs pled guilty in 2010 to conspiring to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841and 846. On May 15, 2012, Longs was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 27 months, with credit for time served, and was placed on supervised release for a period of 5 years. On February 5, 2015, a petition for revocation was filed alleging five violations of the terms of supervised release. Longs admitted to one Grade C violation: that he had violated the terms of his supervised release by committing another federal, state, or local crime. The remaining allegations were dismissed. On March 31, 2015, the district court¹sentenced Longs to 25 months imprisonment with no supervised release to follow. Longs now challenges the substantive reasonableness of that sentence.

We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence imposed after a revocation of supervised release for abuse of discretion. United States v. Miller,557 F.3d 910, 916 (8th Cir.2009). A district court abuses its discretion if it fails to consider a relevant factor that should have received significant weight, gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or commits a clear error of judgment in weighing the appropriate factors. Id.Here, the district court varied upward from the Guidelines sentencing range of 5–11months and imposed a sentence of 25 months—the remainder of Longs' 5–year term of supervised release—with no additional supervised release to follow. In imposing this sentence, the district court considered the recommendation of the probation officer that Longs “remain in custody for the remainder of his supervised release,” noted that Longs had previously benefited from a downward departure, and stated that the sentence was imposed “to reflect the seriousness of the ... offense, to promote respect for the law, to provide for just punishment, [and] to afford deterrence.” Longs argues that the nature and circumstances of his violation were not sufficiently serious to justify the upward variance, particularly given the reasonable alternatives available to the court.

We are unable to conclude that the district court committed a...