United State v. Chris Bald Eagle ( 2023 )

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 22-3630
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Chris Calvin Bald Eagle
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of South Dakota - Western
____________
Submitted: May 8, 2023
Filed: May 24, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before COLLOTON, WOLLMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
In 2017, Christopher Calvin Bald Eagle pled guilty to failure to register as a
sex offender in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a). The district court sentenced him
to 33 months in prison and five years of supervised release. He violated his first
term of supervised release in April 2019. The district court sentenced him to time
served and five years of supervised release. He violated his second term of
supervised release in November and December 2019. The district court sentenced
him to 15 months in prison and three years of supervised release. He violated his
third term of supervised release in 2022. The district court1 sentenced him at the top
of the guidelines to 14 months in prison and two years of supervised release. He
appeals this sentence. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court
affirms.
Bald Eagle argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. This court
reviews the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of discretion. See
United States v. Thigpen, 848 F.3d 841, 847 (8th Cir. 2017). For revocation
sentences, this court applies “the same reasonableness standard that applies to initial
sentencing proceedings.” United States v. Dennis, 35 F.4th 1116, 1118 (8th Cir.
2022). An abuse of discretion occurs when the court “fails to consider a relevant
factor that should have received significant weight,” “gives significant weight to an
improper or irrelevant factor,” or makes a “clear error of judgment” in weighing
appropriate factors. United States v. Funke, 846 F.3d 998, 1000 (8th Cir. 2017).
“[I]t will be the unusual case when we reverse a district court sentence—whether
within, above, or below the applicable Guidelines range—as substantively
unreasonable.” United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 464 (8th Cir. 2009) (en
banc).
Bald Eagle claims the district court did not properly weigh his mitigating
circumstances, specifically his age (68), his struggles with chronic homelessness, his
difficulty managing his physical and mental health, and his limited financial means.
At sentencing, the court listened to Bald Eagle’s request for a lower sentence because
of his age and health conditions. The court specifically addressed his chronic
homelessness:
You’ve also, in the past, indicated that you had a place where you were
going to be able to live, and then that didn’t end up working out. So I
1
The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, United States District Judge for the
District of South Dakota.
-2-
really hope that you have a place to go. But what I’m going to do after
your time in custody is have you go to a residential reentry center for
three months so that you can get established and have a place that’s
yours and get resettled so that we can hopefully transition you back so
that we don’t run into these same problems again.
And, as he acknowledges, his mental health struggles were “well known” to the court
because of earlier questions about his competency.
But the district court also considered his repeated and extensive
noncompliance history, emphasizing his “multiple convictions for failure to update
your registration” and “multiple times when you didn’t comply with the conditions
of your supervised release.” The district court contrasted his noncompliance history
with his promises to comply:
So I’m glad to hear you say that you are going to make sure you keep
your registration updated and that you’re going to keep in touch with
your probation officer, because that’s what you need to do. But based
on your past history, I’m kind of leery about whether that will actually
happen.
Concluding, the district court stated that it had considered the § 3553 and § 3583
factors. Although Bald Eagle disagrees with the weight assigned to his mitigating
circumstances, this does not justify reversal. See United States v. Moua, 895 F.3d
556, 560 (8th Cir. 2018) (describing district court’s “wide latitude” to “assign some
factors greater weight than others”). The district court did not abuse its discretion.
*******
The judgment is affirmed.
________________________
-3-