United States v. Ronald Haukaas

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Ronald Haukaas

118 F. App'x 111

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 18, 2005

Docket04-2275

StatusUnpublished

This text of 118 F. App'x 111 (United States v. Ronald Haukaas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Ronald Haukaas, 118 F. App'x 111 (8th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

After Ronald R. Haukaas III admitted he violated his supervised release, the district court * revoked his release and sentenced him to twenty-four months in prison followed by no supervised release, the maximum allowed under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3), but more than the advised sentence of four to ten months in U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a)’s policy statement. On appeal, his counsel has moved to withdraw and *112 filed a brief under Anders v. California, 886 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), asserting the district court abused its discretion in exceeding the recommended Guidelines range. Haukaas has not filed a pro se supplemental brief.

Although the policy statements in chapter 7 of the Guidelines are merely advisory, district courts must consider them when sentencing a defendant whose supervised release has been revoked. United States v. Hawkins, 375 F.3d 750, 751-52 (8th Cir.2004). According to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), the court must also consider sentencing factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Id. at 752. The district court may impose a sentence exceeding the range advised by chapter 7- “ ‘when, in its considered discretion, such a departure is warranted.’ ” Id. at 753 (quoting United States v. Carr, 66 F.3d 981, 983 (8th Cir.1995) (per curiam)).

Here, the district court acknowledged the advised Guidelines range of four to ten months and correctly observed the advised range was not binding on the court. After stating it had considered all the factors set out in 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553 and 3583, the district court found Haukass was not a suitable person for continued supervision. The district court noted Haukaas’s denial of a substance abuse problem, minimal progress in treatment programs, and the probation office’s view that Haukaas was so negative and lacking in acceptance of responsibility that it did not want to spend any more effort supervising him. Under the circumstances, we conclude the sentence imposed was a carefully considered exercise of the district court’s discretion. Hawkins, 375 F.3d at 753.

We have reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and found no nonfrivolous issues. We thus affirm, and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

*

The Honorable Charles B. Kornmann, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

After Ronald R. Haukaas III admitted he violated his supervised release, the district court * revoked his release and sentenced him to twenty-four months in prison followed by no supervised release, the maximum allowed under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3), but more than the advised sentence of four to ten months in U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a)’s policy statement. On appeal, his counsel has moved to withdraw and *112 filed a brief under Anders v. California, 886 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), asserting the district court abused its discretion in exceeding the recommended Guidelines range. Haukaas has not filed a pro se supplemental brief.

Although the policy statements in chapter 7 of the Guidelines are merely advisory, district courts must consider them when sentencing a defendant whose supervised release has been revoked. United States v. Hawkins, 375 F.3d 750, 751-52 (8th Cir.2004). According to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), the court must also consider sentencing factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Id. at 752. The district court may impose a sentence exceeding the range advised by chapter 7- “ ‘when, in its considered discretion, such a departure is warranted.’ ” Id. at 753 (quoting United States v. Carr, 66 F.3d 981, 983 (8th Cir.1995) (per curiam)).

Here, the district court acknowledged the advised Guidelines range of four to ten months and correctly observed the advised range was not binding on the court. After stating it had considered all the factors set out in 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553 and 3583, the district court found Haukass was not a suitable person for continued supervision. The district court noted Haukaas’s denial of a substance abuse problem, minimal progress in treatment programs, and the probation office’s view that Haukaas was so negative and lacking in acceptance of responsibility that it did not want to spend any more effort supervising him. Under the circumstances, we conclude the sentence imposed was a carefully considered exercise of the district court’s discretion. Hawkins, 375 F.3d at 753.

We have reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and found no nonfrivolous issues. We thus affirm, and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

*

The Honorable Charles B. Kornmann, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 F. App'x 111, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-ronald-haukaas-ca8-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack