United States v. Mansfield

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
• Decided: February 25, 2025
• Docket: 24-1312
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Appellate Case: 24-1312 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 02/25/2025 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT February 25, 2025 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. No. 24-1312 (D.C. No. 1:18-CR-00466-PAB-1) GEOFFREY WARD MANSFIELD, (D. Colo.)

Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________

Before FEDERICO, BALDOCK, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. _________________________________

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral

argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore

submitted without oral argument.

Geoffrey Mansfield admitted to multiple violations of the terms of his

supervised release. The district court revoked Mansfield’s supervised release,

sentenced him to a downward-variant term of imprisonment of eighteen months, and

ordered him to serve an additional eighteen-month term of supervised release.

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. Appellate Case: 24-1312 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 02/25/2025 Page: 2

Mansfield appeals, asserting his term of imprisonment is substantively unreasonable.

This court exercises jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)

and affirms.

Mansfield pleaded guilty to being a felon illegally in possession of a firearm.

See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The firearm at issue was an AK-47 style rifle Mansfield

sold to a confidential informant. Mansfield’s § 922(g)(1) conviction was his fourth

felony conviction. He also has multiple non-felony convictions and was on probation

at the time he committed the § 922(g)(1) offense. The district court sentenced

Mansfield to three years’ imprisonment and three years of supervised release.

During the term of Mansfield’s term of supervision, the U.S. Probation Office

filed with the district court a superseding petition, asserting Mansfield committed

nine violations of the terms of his supervised release. The petition asserted Mansfield

failed to reside in and comply with the rules of the Residential Reentry Center

(RRC), used methamphetamine on four separate occasions, failed to participate in

substance abuse or mental health treatment, failed to participate in substance abuse

testing, and failed on two different occasions to notify his probation officer of a

change in employment. The Probation Office then filed a Supervised Release

Violation Report. The Violation Report noted Mansfield’s highest grade of violation

was a Grade B and calculated Mansfield’s Sentencing Guidelines range to be 21 to 24

months’ imprisonment. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a) (Revocation Table) (setting out an

advisory sentencing range of twenty-one to twenty-seven months’ imprisonment for a

2 Appellate Case: 24-1312 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 02/25/2025 Page: 3

Grade B violation and a Criminal History Category VI). The Probation Office

recommended eighteen months of imprisonment.

The Violation Report stated Mansfield performed well at the onset of

supervision while living at the RRC, but regressed within a short time after moving

to his own apartment. Mansfield was thereafter fired from his job for misconduct,

used alcohol and methamphetamines, had difficulty obtaining other employment and

meeting his financial needs, and was eventually evicted from his apartment. He

missed treatment sessions as well as scheduled and random drug testing. He did not

report his employment changes as required and was not open about his relapse and

struggles. Mansfield was offered another placement at RRC. He did not report for the

placement and, instead, absconded for about one year. As justification for the

recommended downward-variant sentence, the Violation Report indicated Mansfield

“has a significant history of failure to comply with prior terms of community

supervision” and “a long-documented history of alcohol and methamphetamine

abuse.” The Violation Report also noted Mansfield has been diagnosed with

schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, PTSD, and intermittent explosive disorder.

Mansfield has been afforded substance abuse treatment and interventions through

inpatient, outpatient, and drug court, but his attendance and participation in

outpatient counseling while on supervised release “was poor.” The Violation Report

concluded Mansfield’s mental health and substance abuse issues “continue to limit”

his “ability for success if not properly treated and consistently addressed.”

3 Appellate Case: 24-1312 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 02/25/2025 Page: 4

Mansfield did not file any objections to the superseding petition or Violation

Report. He did, however, file a Sentencing Statement in advance of his revocation

hearing. The statement mostly cataloged his health issues, including congestive heart

failure, atrial fibrillation, and a staph infection that was resistant to antibiotics.

Rather than revoking his supervision, Mansfield requested “intensive drug

treatment,” either in an RRC or in his elderly mother’s home.

At the revocation hearing, Mansfield admitted he failed to report and reside in

the RRC (violation 1), used methamphetamine on four separate occasions (violations

2-5), and failed to provide urine samples (violation 7). The government then

dismissed the remaining alleged violations. The district court determined the highest

grade of violation was a Grade B violation; Mansfield had a Criminal History

Category of VI; and his advisory guidelines sentencing range was, thus, 21 to 24

months’ imprisonment. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a) (Revocation Table). Mansfield did

not object to these determinations.

After the parties’ arguments and Mansfield’s allocution, the district court

varied downward from the Guidelines range and sentenced Mansfield to eighteen

months’ imprisonment and eighteen months of supervised release. It explained that in

fashioning a sentence, it considered Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1 and the factors set forth in

18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). It noted Mansfield started off well on supervised release, “[b]ut

unfortunately when he got a little bit more freedom after moving out of the RRC, his

progress regressed.” Mansfield was fired from his job at Goodwill, he relapsed, he

“was using alcohol, which is his life-long problem,” and he was also using

4 Appellate Case: 24-1312 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 02/25/2025 Page: 5

methamphetamine. The court pointed out Mansfield was then evicted from his

apartment, missed “all sorts of appointments” with his probation officer, became

homeless, and ultimately absconded from supervision. Mansfield’s primary health

problem, according to the district court, was homelessness and drug abuse. It

concluded the prison environment would promote Mansfield’s health because “the

healthcare that he gets in prison, or in custody, is a lot better than he would be getting

if he’s homeless and if he returns to drug and alcohol abuse.” In so concluding, the

district court rejected Mansfield’s request that his supervision be continued and he be

placed in the home of his elderly mother. It recognized there were no facilities

available in that location, which would leave him unsupervised.1 The court credited

Mansfield with seeking some type of inpatient treatment and indicated that a further

term of supervision following his sentence would “hopefully give [Mansfield] an

opportunity to address his various types of addiction issues.” Nevertheless, the

1 The district court noted as follows:

Mr. Mansfield is requesting . . .to live with his mother. That’s totally inappropriate. We don’t have any facilities in Craig . . . . I really appreciate his mother being here. She is really dedicated to Mr. Mansfield and she was here during the trial; she’s here today.

[] Mr. Mansfield is lucky he has that type of family support, so that’s really good. So it’s nothing to do with her, of course, it's rather the location and the fact that, you know, we wouldn’t have Mr. Mansfield who has a—you know, he just admitted to a number of violations where he couldn’t comply with terms and conditions of supervision in a structured environment, the last thing we would do is put him with his mother in an unsupervised environment and expect that he would be able to do well. Like I said, nothing against his mother; it’s just that wouldn’t be an appropriate form of supervision. 5 Appellate Case: 24-1312 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 02/25/2025 Page: 6

district court concluded eighteen months’ imprisonment was appropriate given

Mansfield’s “violations of trust” after initial placement on supervised release and

“his numerous failures” which he admitted to the court.

Mansfield asserts the district court’s eighteen-month downward-variant

sentence is substantively unreasonable because it is unduly harsh. He asserts this was

the first time he violated the terms of his supervision and his violations were

nonviolent; his violations were not willful but, instead, the result of his drug and

alcohol addictions; his incarceration is at odds with his numerous and serious medical

conditions; and his prior reentry to society was hampered by his lack of family

support in the physical area of supervision. This court reviews the substantive

reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of discretion. United States v. Smart, 518 F.3d

800, 805-06 (10th Cir. 2008). This standard is satisfied only if the district court’s

chosen sentence is “arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or manifestly unreasonable.”

United States v. Gantt, 679 F.3d 1240, 1249 (10th Cir. 2012) (quotation omitted). A

downward variant sentence is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness.

United States v. Balbin-Mesa, 643 F.3d 783, 788 (10th Cir. 2011). Substantive

reasonableness “contemplates a range, not a point,” and this court recognizes a range

of “rationally available choices” that the facts and law can fairly support. United

States v. Martinez, 610 F.3d 1216, 1227 (10th Cir. 2010) (quotations omitted).

Mansfield’s downward variant sentence of eighteen months’ imprisonment is

entirely reasonable. Given Mansfield’s extensive criminal history and historic

inability to perform well under supervised release or community supervision, the

6 Appellate Case: 24-1312 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 02/25/2025 Page: 7

district court reasonably concluded Mansfield’s breach of trust necessitated a

significant term of imprisonment. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(A). Those same

facts reasonably support the conclusion a term of incarceration was necessary to deter

Mansfield from further criminal conduct, to protect the public from further violations

of the law, and to provide Mansfield with needed medical care. See id.

§ 3553(a)(2)(B)-(D). Mansfield’s arguments to the contrary amount to “nothing more

than a disagreement with the district court about how the evidence should be

evaluated and weighed.” United States v. Branson, 463 F.3d 1110, 1112 (10th Cir.

2006). 2 The district court thoroughly considered Mansfield’s arguments for leniency

and reasonably concluded a lesser sentence, let alone a noncustodial sentence, would

be at odds with the factors set out in § 3553(a). This court “must give due deference

to the district court’s decision that the § 3553(a) factors, [as] a whole, justify the”

sentence imposed. Smart, 518 F.3d at 808 (quotations omitted).

2 As noted above, the record reveals as follows: (1) Mansfield has an extensive criminal history and “a significant history of failure to comply with prior terms of community supervision”; (2) Mansfield has been afforded substance abuse treatment and interventions through inpatient, outpatient, and drug court, but his attendance and participation in outpatient counseling while on supervised release “was poor”; (3) Mansfield’s homelessness and addiction contributed to his health issues and his medical care would improve during incarceration; and (4) there were no facilities to allow supervision in his mother’s hometown. 7 Appellate Case: 24-1312 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 02/25/2025 Page: 8

Under the facts and circumstances of this case, Mansfield has not come close

to rebutting the presumption his below-Guidelines sentence is substantively

reasonable. Accordingly, the district court’s sentence is hereby AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

MICHAEL R. MUPRHY Circuit Judge