United States v. Gabe Key, No. 12-2568 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Sentence imposed upon the revocation of defendant's supervised release was not substantively unreasonable; district court did not err in imposing an additional year of supervision as defendant's sentence was governed by 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3583(h), which gives the court authority to impose additional supervision. [ January 23, 2013
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 12-2568 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Gabe Key lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul ____________ Submitted: January 14, 2013 Filed: January 25, 2013 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BYE, MELLOY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Gabe Key appeals a twenty-four month sentence imposed by the district court1 after Key violated the terms of his supervised release. Key claims the twenty-four 1 The Honorable Patrick J. Schiltz, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. month sentence is substantively unreasonable. Key also appeals the district court's imposition of an additional year of supervised release, contending the district court lacked authority to impose an additional term of supervised release because the twenty-four month sentence was the maximum authorized revocation sentence the district court could have imposed. See United States v. Brings Plenty, 188 F.3d 1051, 1053 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) ("Under § 3583(h), if the court revokes supervised release and sentences the defendant to the maximum authorized prison term, it may not impose an additional term of supervised release."). Reviewing the substantive reasonableness of Key's sentence for an abuse of discretion, United States v. Growden, 663 F.3d 982, 984 (8th Cir. 2011) (per curiam), we find no abuse of discretion. The sentence was within the advisory guidelines range and therefore presumed reasonable on appeal. See, e.g., United States v. Petreikis, 551 F.3d 822, 824 (8th Cir. 2009). In addition, the record shows the district court adequately considered the factors set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and sufficiently explained its reasons for imposing a twenty-four month sentence. Specifically, the district court noted the seriousness of the supervised release violation (selling crack cocaine), and the fact that Key showed a pattern of noncompliance by committing three violations of supervised release in a span of ten months. We also reject Key's reliance upon Brings Plenty to contend the district court lacked authority to impose an additional year of supervised release. As we recently noted in United States v. Zoran, 682 F.3d 1060 (8th Cir. 2012), § 3583(h) has been amended since we decided Brings Plenty. The amended version of § 3583(h) governs Key's sentence and did not prohibit the district court from imposing an additional year of supervised release. Zoran, 682 F.3d at 1063. We affirm the judgment of the district court in all respects. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
