United States v. Erik Adams-Reading, No. 20-1304 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Wollman, and Stras, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. The above-guidelines-range sentence imposed upon the revocation of defendant's supervised release was substantively reasonable.
Download PDF
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United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ____________ Submitted: March 12, 2021 Filed: April 9, 2021 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, WOLLMAN, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.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-
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.
