United States v. Larry Dean Rederick, No. 17-1871 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Smith, Chief Judge, and Gruender and Benton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Sentence imposed upon the revocation of defendant's supervised release was not substantively unreasonable. [ December 12, 2017
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-1871 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Larry Dean Rederick lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of South Dakota - Sioux Falls ____________ Submitted: October 16, 2017 Filed: December 13, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SMITH, Chief Judge, GRUENDER and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Larry Dean Rederick appeals his revocation sentence, arguing his withinGuidelines sentence is substantively unreasonable. We affirm. I. Background In 2014 Rederick pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3). The district court1 sentenced Rederick to two months’ imprisonment followed by supervised release. After his prison sentence and after serving time in state custody for an unrelated offense, Rederick did well for almost a year on supervision. He complied with his release conditions and worked hard running his own construction and vehicle-repair business. Unfortunately, his compliance did not last. In spring 2017 the probation office petitioned the district court to revoke Rederick’s supervised release for drug-related violations. At the revocation hearing, Rederick admitted to three Grade C violations involving methamphetamine. The district court revoked Rederick’s supervised release. It sentenced him to 14 months’ imprisonment and 22 months’ supervised release, the top of the calculated Sentencing Guidelines range. II. Discussion On appeal, Rederick argues that the district court failed to consider his methamphetamine addiction, his acknowledgment of the problem, and his period of success on supervision. For these reasons, he says his sentence is substantively unreasonable. We review the reasonableness of a revocation sentence under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. United States v. Growden, 663 F.3d 982, 984 (8th Cir. 2011) (per curiam). “A district court abuses its discretion and imposes an unreasonable sentence when it fails to consider a relevant and significant factor, gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or considers the appropriate 1 The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota. -2- factors but commits a clear error of judgment in weighing those factors.” Id. (quoting United States v. Kreitinger, 576 F.3d 500, 503 (8th Cir. 2009)). A district court must consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors in a supervisedrelease revocation sentencing, see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(c), though it need not make specific findings relating to each factor that it considered. United States v. Hum, 766 F.3d 925, 928 (8th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (citing United States v. Franklin, 397 F.3d 604, 606–07 (8th Cir. 2005)). Instead, it is sufficient if there “is evidence that the court has considered the relevant matters and that some reason be stated for its decision.” Id. (quoting United States v. White Face, 383 F.3d 733, 740 (8th Cir. 2004)). We may presume a within-Guidelines sentence to be reasonable. United States v. Garcia, 512 F.3d 1004, 1006 (8th Cir. 2012) (citing Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007)). Here, in imposing Rederick’s sentence, the district court explicitly stated that it had considered the § 3553(a) factors. Because the court conducted Rederick’s initial sentencing, the court knew Rederick’s history and characteristics. See Franklin, 397 F.3d at 607. During the revocation hearing, the district court discussed Rederick’s violations and criminal history category, the suggested Chapter 7 range, and the statutory maximum. In addition, Rederick’s lawyer spoke at length about Rederick, including his hard work, long struggle with methamphetamine, and efforts to set his life straight. The district court discussed all these things as well, noting Rederick’s intelligence, work ethic, family support, and future potential—if he could “kick the [methamphetamine] habit.” Transcript of Final Revocation of Supervised Release Hearing at 20–23, United States v. Rederick, No. 4:14-cr-40003-KES-1 (D.S.D. Apr. 11, 2017), ECF No. 76. It lamented the difficulties that methamphetamine addicts like Rederick face, and it expressed its belief that Rederick “need[s] a little longer period of time where you’re in custody so you’re not around meth so that when you come out you can stay clean.” Id. at 21. It is apparent that the district court considered Rederick’s methamphetamine addiction, his -3- acknowledgment of the problem, and his initial success on supervision. The court in fact heard argument on and itself discussed these issues. We are well satisfied that the district court adequately considered the relevant factors and gave reasons for its decision. See Hum, 766 F.3d at 928. Rederick’s within-Guidelines sentence is reasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion. III. Conclusion We affirm. ______________________________ -4-
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.
