United States v. Justin Howard, No. 20-1037 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Shepherd, Wollman, and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. The district court adequately explained defendant's revocation sentence.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 20-1037 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Justin Jerome Howard lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of South Dakota - Aberdeen ____________ Submitted: September 20, 2021 Filed: November 24, 2021 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SHEPHERD, WOLLMAN, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. After Justin Jerome Howard violated the conditions of his supervised release, the district court1 sentenced him to the statutory maximum term of imprisonment of 1 The Honorable Charles B. Kornmann, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota. 24 months, see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3), to be followed by five years’ supervised release. Howard argues that the sentence was procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to adequately explain its reasoning for imposing a sentence well above the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines range of 5 to 11 months’ imprisonment. Because Howard did not object at sentencing, we review for plain error whether the district court adequately explained the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United States v. Eagle Thunder, 553 F.3d 605, 608 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review). We conclude that there was no plain error in the district court’s explanation of Howard’s revocation sentence. The district court explicitly stated that it was aware of and had considered the § 3553(a) factors. See id. (explaining that the district court need not recite each § 3553(a) factor but must show that it was aware of the proper sentencing factors). The district court further explained its reasoning for its sentence, noting that Howard’s supervised release had been revoked three times on this and on another underlying conviction, that he had consumed alcohol and failed to appear at work numerous times, and that the 11-month sentence the court had imposed at his previous revocation had not accomplished its intended purpose of deterring Howard’s violations. The district court adequately explained the sentence, relying in particular on “the need . . . to promote respect for the law” and the need “to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We thus conclude that it did not commit plain error in sentencing Howard. See Eagle Thunder, 553 F.3d at 608. The judgment is affirmed. ______________________________________ -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.
