United States v. Erik Adams-Reading ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                  United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 20-1304
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    Plaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    Erik Nikkolas Adams-Reading
    Defendant - Appellant
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the District of Minnesota
    ____________
    Submitted: March 12, 2021
    Filed: April 9, 2021
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before LOKEN, WOLLMAN, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Erik Adams-Reading received a sentence of 18 months in prison for violating
    the conditions of supervised release. The challenge here is to the substantive
    reasonableness of the sentence, which was well above the recommended range under
    the Sentencing Guidelines. We affirm.
    We conclude that Adams-Reading’s sentence is substantively reasonable. See
    United States v. Thunder, 
    553 F.3d 605
    , 609 (8th Cir. 2009). The record establishes
    that the district court 1 sufficiently considered the statutory sentencing factors, 
    18 U.S.C. §§ 3553
    (a), 3583(e)(3), and did not rely on an improper factor or commit a
    clear error of judgment. See United States v. Larison, 
    432 F.3d 921
    , 923–24 (8th
    Cir. 2006). To be sure, the court could have ordered immediate psychiatric treatment
    in lieu of imprisonment. But it did not abuse its discretion by making a different
    decision after “weigh[ing] the sentencing factors”: ordering treatment to begin later,
    once Adams-Reading’s 18-month prison term is complete. United States v. Hall,
    
    825 F.3d 373
    , 375 (8th Cir. 2016) (per curiam). 2
    We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court.
    ______________________________
    1
    The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the
    District of Minnesota.
    2
    To the extent that Adams-Reading also challenges the underlying decision to
    revoke supervised release, we conclude that there was no abuse of discretion. See
    United States v. Brown, 
    947 F.3d 503
    , 505 (8th Cir. 2020).
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20-1304

Filed Date: 4/9/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/9/2021