United States v. Michael Karas , 470 F. App'x 518 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                     United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 11-2721
    ___________
    *
    United States of America,              *
    *
    Appellee,                  * Appeal from the United States
    * District Court for the
    v.                               * District of Nebraska.
    *
    Michael Karas,                         * [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Appellant.                 *
    ___________
    Submitted: May 14, 2012
    Filed: June 1, 2012
    ___________
    Before MURPHY, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Michael Karas's supervised release was revoked by the district court1 and he
    was sentenced to one year and one day in prison after he admitted to violating his
    conditions of supervised release by using methamphetamine and failing to show up
    for required drug testing. Karas appeals, arguing that the district court failed to
    consider the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and imposed an excessive
    sentence. We affirm.
    1
    The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, United States District Judge for the
    District of Nebraska.
    Karas had pled guilty in 2003 to conspiracy to distribute more than 500 grams
    of methamphetamine and possession of a firearm during a drug trafficking offense in
    violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). He was sentenced to 180
    months in prison, but that was later reduced to 90 months on a motion by the
    government. He was also sentenced to five years of supervised release for each
    offense, to run concurrently. Two mandatory conditions of Karas's supervised release
    were that he refrain from using controlled substances and that he submit to drug
    testing.
    Karas began his term of supervised release on July 20, 2009. In November
    2010 his probation officer filed a petition for a warrant or summons because he had
    allegedly failed to notify the officer about a change in his address, had used
    methamphetamine, and had failed to attend scheduled drug tests. At a hearing in
    front of the district court, Karas admitted to using methamphetamine and to missing
    the scheduled drug tests. The district court postponed sentencing and released Karas
    so he could receive treatment at a halfway house.
    In February 2011 the probation officer filed a second petition for a warrant or
    summons because Karas had allegedly left the rehabilitation center without
    permission, committed a burglary, and failed to attend scheduled drug testing. After
    receiving a sentence of 7 to 10 years in state court for felony charges, Karas appeared
    before the federal district court for sentencing. The government withdrew its second
    petition against Karas, and instead asked the district court to sentence him based on
    his prior admissions that he had violated the terms of his supervised release by using
    methamphetamine and missing scheduled drug tests. The adjusted report and
    recommendation stated that the advisory guideline range for Taylor's admitted
    violations was 6 to 12 months in prison. U.S.S.G. §§ 7B1.4(a), 7B1.1(b).
    Karas requested a sentence at the low end of the guideline range without any
    supervised release because he had been diagnosed with bipolar disease and he had
    already received a substantial sentence in state prison. The government agreed with
    -2-
    a recommendation by the probation officer that Taylor be sentenced to 24 months in
    prison and further stated that it did not believe that any additional supervision would
    be useful. The district court determined that a prison sentence was necessary since
    Karas had absconded and committed a crime after he had earlier been permitted to
    live in a halfway house. Karas was sentenced to one year and one day, to run
    consecutively to his state sentence. No supervised release was ordered.
    Karas appeals, arguing that the district court failed to consider the sentencing
    factors under § 3553(a) and imposed an excessive sentence. He contends that his
    sentence was unreasonable because his violations were not the most serious types of
    offenses listed under Chapter 7 of the sentencing guidelines. See U.S.S.G. §
    7B1.1(a). We review a revocation sentence for procedural soundness and we review
    its substantive reasonableness under "the same 'reasonableness' standard that applies
    to initial sentencing proceedings." United States v. Benton, 
    627 F.3d 1051
    , 1055 (8th
    Cir. 2010) (quoting United States v. Merrival, 
    521 F.3d 889
    , 890 (8th Cir. 2008)).
    Since Karas did not object to the adequacy of the district court's consideration
    of the § 3553(a) factors at his sentencing hearing, our review is for plain error.
    
    Benton, 627 F.3d at 1055
    . The district court did not err in imposing a sentence of one
    year and one day because it reflected an understanding of the nature and
    circumstances of Karas's violations, his history, and the seriousness of his offense.
    See United States v. Petreikis, 
    551 F.3d 822
    , 825 (8th Cir. 2009). The district court
    listened to Karas's counsel discuss his mental illness and state court sentence. It then
    expressed concern that Karas had absconded and committed a crime after the court
    had postponed his initial sentencing so that he could receive treatment at a halfway
    house. While the district court did not specifically reference the § 3553(a) factors,
    its statements show that it was aware of the statute and adequately considered it in
    determining the appropriate sentence. See United States v. Perkins, 
    526 F.3d 1107
    ,
    1110–11 (8th Cir. 2008).
    -3-
    Karas also suggests that the district court imposed a sentence that was "clearly
    excessive" because it was to be served consecutively to his state prison sentence. The
    substantive reasonableness of a sentence is reviewed under a deferential abuse of
    discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 
    552 U.S. 38
    , 51 (2007). The decision to
    impose a consecutive sentence is reviewed for reasonableness. See United States v.
    McDonald, 
    521 F.3d 975
    , 980 (8th Cir. 2008). The district court considered the
    appropriate factors, adequately explained its reasoning, see 
    Benton, 627 F.3d at 1056
    ,
    and sentenced Karas well below the statutory maximum sentence. 18 U.S.C. §
    3583(e)(3). We therefore conclude that the district court acted reasonably in ordering
    Karas's sentence to be served consecutively to his state court sentence.
    Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
    ______________________________
    -4-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-2721

Citation Numbers: 470 F. App'x 518

Judges: Benton, Murphy, Per Curiam, Shepherd

Filed Date: 6/1/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/5/2023