Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 11-20-2021
Case Style:
United States of America v. Dominique Boyles
Case Number: 19-3096
Judge: Carlos F. Lucero
Court: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
On appeal from The United States District Court for the District of Kansas - Topeka
Plaintiff's Attorney: United States Attorney’s Office
Defendant's Attorney:
Description:
Denver, CO - Criminal defense lawyer represented defendant with a being a felon in possession of a firearm.
In 2014, Boyles pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and
received a sentence of 57 months’ imprisonment and three years of supervised
release. His term of supervised release began in January 2017. After Boyles failed
drug tests and violated the rules of a halfway house and drug-treatment program in
which he was required to participate, the probation office filed a petition to revoke
his supervised release. The district court sentenced him to two additional years of
supervised release. In February 2019, the probation office again filed a petition to
revoke Boyles’ supervised release, alleging he tested positive for marijuana, failed to
follow the rules of a treatment program and halfway house, and failed to maintain
employment.
At a revocation hearing, the probation officer testified that Boyles tested
positive for marijuana on several occasions, repeatedly violated the rules of his
treatment program and halfway house by missing numerous mental health treatment
appointments, and voluntarily terminated his employment without giving the required
notice to his probation officer. The district court found that Boyles had violated the
terms of his supervised release and that Grade C was the highest-grade violation.
Based on Boyles’ category III criminal history, the policy statements in Chapter 7 of
the Sentencing Guidelines recommend a term of imprisonment of five to eleven
months. U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a). The applicable statutory maximum term of
imprisonment is two years. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). The court sentenced Boyles to
Appellate Case: 19-3096 Document: 010110285782 Date Filed: 01/09/2020 Page: 2
3
fourteen months’ imprisonment, with no term of supervised release. Boyles timely
appealed.
II
If an attorney concludes after conscientiously examining a case that any appeal
would be frivolous, he may so advise the court and request permission to withdraw.
See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. In conjunction with such a request, counsel must
submit a brief highlighting any potentially appealable issues and provide a copy to
the defendant. Id. The defendant may then submit a pro se brief. Id. If the court
determines that the appeal is frivolous upon careful examination of the record, it may
grant the request to withdraw and dismiss the appeal. Id. In this case, counsel
provided a copy of the Anders brief to Boyles, but a pro se brief was not filed.
Counsel’s Anders brief discusses the revocation of Boyles’ supervised release.
We review a revocation of supervised release for abuse of discretion. See United
States v. Metzener, 584 F.3d 928, 932 (10th Cir. 2009). We agree with counsel that
any challenge to the revocation of Boyles’ supervised release is frivolous. The
district court complied with the procedures for revoking supervised release set forth
in Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1. Further, the court made specific findings based on
uncontroverted evidence that Boyles committed multiple violations of the terms of
his supervised release.
The Anders brief also considers Boyles’ sentence. “In reviewing a sentence
imposed after revocation of supervised release, we review the district court’s factual
findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. We will not reverse a
Appellate Case: 19-3096 Document: 010110285782 Date Filed: 01/09/2020 Page: 3
4
sentence following revocation of supervised release if the record establishes the
sentence is reasoned and reasonable.” United States v. Handley, 678 F.3d 1185, 1188
(10th Cir. 2012) (citation and quotation omitted). “[A] reasoned sentence is one that
is procedurally reasonable; and a reasonable sentence is one that is substantively
reasonable.” United States v. McBride, 633 F.3d 1229, 1232 (10th Cir. 2011)
(quotations omitted). “Procedural review asks whether the sentencing court
committed any error in calculating or explaining the sentence.” United States v.
Alapizco-Valenzuela, 546 F.3d 1208, 1214 (10th Cir. 2008). “Substantive review
involves whether the length of the sentence is reasonable given all the circumstances
of the case in light of” the statutory factors. Id. at 1215 (quotation omitted).
We agree with counsel that the district court correctly determined Boyles’
Guidelines range and statutory maximum. Although the court varied from Boyles’
Guidelines range, we have held that “a sentence in excess of that recommended by
the Chapter 7 policy statements will be upheld if it can be determined from the record
to have been reasoned and reasonable.” United States v. Cordova, 461 F.3d 1184,
1188 (10th Cir. 2006) (quotation omitted). The court must consider the Chapter 7
policy statements and some of the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See
Cordova, 461 F.3d at 1188; see also 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). It “is not required to
consider individually each factor listed in § 3553(a), nor is it required to recite any
magic words” to show it considered the factors. Cordova, 461 F.3d at 1189
(quotation omitted).
Appellate Case: 19-3096 Document: 010110285782 Date Filed: 01/09/2020 Page: 4
5
In this case, the district court stated that it had considered the Chapter 7 policy
statements, the nature and circumstances of Boyles’ violations, his characteristics,
and the sentencing objectives underlying the federal statute. The court also expressly
noted that the revocation was based on a “larger pattern” of violations. At the
revocation hearing, the court heard and considered extensive testimony and argument
regarding the violations and the sentence. We agree with counsel that the court’s
imposition of a sentence of fourteen months’ imprisonment was reasoned and
reasonable.
Finally, our independent review of the record has not uncovered any other
potentially meritorious issues
Outcome: For the foregoing reasons, we GRANT counsel’s request to withdraw and
DISMISS the appeal.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: