Submitted: September 24, 2018
from United States District Court for the Northern District
of Iowa - Cedar Rapids
SMITH, Chief Judge, MELLOY and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
MELLOY, CIRCUIT JUDGE.
Maurice Wilkins committed multiple violations of his
supervised release, including an assault on his wife. The
district court revoked Wilkins's supervised release
and sentenced him to twelve months' imprisonment with
three years' supervised release. As a condition of his
supervised release, the district court prohibited Wilkins
from contacting his wife, either directly or indirectly,
during the full term of his supervision. Wilkins appeals both
the sentence and the no-contact condition, arguing that they
are substantively unreasonable. We affirm.
has a long criminal history. In 1994, he pled guilty to
aggravated vehicle hijacking with a dangerous weapon and was
sentenced to eight years' imprisonment. In 2003, he pled
guilty to disorderly conduct, possession of a controlled
substance, and harassment, and was fined. The basis for the
harassment charge was an incident in which Wilkins threatened
to kill his wife and then drove to her apartment and kicked
her door down. In 2004, Wilkins pled guilty to one count of
conspiracy to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base. He
was sentenced to 210 months' imprisonment with five
years' supervised release. Due to retroactive Guideline
amendments, Wilkins's sentence was eventually reduced in
2011 to 135 months' imprisonment.
first term of supervised release began in April 2014. In the
span of two years, Wilkins committed numerous violations of
his supervised release. One of those violations involved
Wilkins slapping his son and grabbing his wife's face and
jaw. The violations resulted in Wilkins re-appearing before
the district court five times. The first four times Wilkins
returned to court, the district court responded by modifying
the terms of his release. The fifth time, however, the
district court revoked his supervised release and sentenced
him to nine months' imprisonment with three years'
supervised release. This Court affirmed that sentence on May
present case stems from Wilkins's second term of
supervised release, which began in November 2016. Just five
months after Wilkins started his second term of supervised
release, a probation officer filed for revocation, alleging
that Wilkins: (1) failed to submit a required urine sample;
(2) submitted a diluted urine sample; and (3) assaulted his
wife by hitting her. During the sentencing hearing, Wilkins
admitted these violations. All parties agreed that the
appropriate Guidelines range was six to twelve months'
imprisonment. The district court sentenced Wilkins to twelve
months' imprisonment with three years' supervised
release. It also prohibited Wilkins from contacting his wife
during his supervised release.
Standard of Review
review revocation sentences "under the same
'reasonableness' standard that applies to initial
sentencing proceedings." United States v.
Merrival, 521 F.3d 889, 890 (8th Cir. 2008). Thus, the
substantive reasonableness of a revocation sentence is
reviewed "under a deferential abuse-of-discretion
standard." Id. "A district court abuses
its discretion and imposes an unreasonable sentence when it
fails to consider a relevant and significant [18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a)] factor, gives significant weight to an
irrelevant or improper factor, or considers the appropriate
factors but commits a clear error of judgment in weighing
those factors." United States v. Kreitinger,
576 F.3d 500, 503 (8th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted).
However, a district court is given "wide latitude in
weighing relevant factors." United States v.
Farmer, 647 F.3d 1175, 1180 (8th Cir. 2011). And, on
appeal, we consider a sentence that falls within the
Guidelines range to be presumptively reasonable. United
States v. Petreikis, 551 F.3d 822, 824 (8th Cir. 2009).
review the "imposition of special conditions of
supervised release for abuse of discretion." United
States v. Hobbs, 710 F.3d 850, 852 (8th Cir. 2013).
District courts have discretion to impose special conditions
of supervised release "so long as the conditions are
reasonably related to the sentencing factors enumerated in 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a), involve no greater deprivation of
liberty than is reasonably necessary, and are consistent with
the Sentencing Commission's pertinent policy
statements." United States v. Cooper, 171 F.3d
582, 585 (8th Cir. 1999). The relevant sentencing factors
include: "the nature and circumstances of the offense of
conviction, the defendant's history and characteristics,
the deterrence of criminal conduct, the protection of the
public from further crimes of the defendant, and the
defendant's educational, vocational, medical, or other
correctional needs." United States v.
Deatherage, 682 F.3d 755, 758 (8th Cir. 2012) (citing 18
U.S.C. § 3583(d)). Importantly, "a court must make
an individualized inquiry into the facts and circumstances
underlying a case and make sufficient findings on the record
so as to ensure that the special condition satisfies the
statutory requirements." Id. (citation
that Wilkins's twelve-month revocation sentence was
substantively reasonable. Wilkins argues that the district
court inappropriately weighed the § 3553(a) factors by
ignoring the progress he had made while on supervised
release. District courts, however, are given "wide
latitude" in weighing the factors. Farmer, 647
F.3d at 1179. Thus, the district court did not abuse its
discretion in deciding to focus on Wilkins's long
criminal history, numerous violations of supervised release,
and violent ...