United States v. Thomas Jensen , 583 F. App'x 558 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                  United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    Nos. 13-3651/13-3652
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    Thomas Jackie Jensen
    lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the District of South Dakota - Western Division
    ____________
    Submitted: November 11, 2014
    Filed: November 17, 2014
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before MURPHY, MELLOY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Thomas Jackie Jensen admitted violating a condition of two terms of
    supervised release. The district court1 revoked his supervised release and sentenced
    1
    The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, United States District Judge for the
    District of South Dakota.
    him to 36 months’ imprisonment. Jensen appeals, challenging the reasonableness of
    the sentence. He claims the court undervalued mitigating factors—especially his
    mental health needs—and overvalued his offense characteristics and history. Having
    jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    , this court affirms.
    Both terms of supervised release began on August 23, 2013. By September 3,
    Jensen had threatened several staffers at his residential community corrections center.
    Jensen was terminated from the center, in violation of his supervised release.
    For revocation of the two terms of supervised release, the Guidelines range was
    9 to 21 months’ imprisonment The court varied upward, imposing consecutive
    sentences of 12 and 24 months. The court analyzed the 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a)
    sentencing factors. It noted that Jensen’s threats to staffers were “very much like the
    past offense conduct.” (Jensen previously pled guilty to assaulting a federal officer
    and mailing a threatening communication.2) The court was “concerned about Mr.
    Jensen acting out . . . [and] carrying out something that he’s talking about.” The court
    noted its duty “to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant, and that is,
    frankly, given the seriousness of what he threatens, that is an overriding
    consideration.” See 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a)(2)(C). The court added:
    It is also, under part D, the need to provide the defendant with needed
    medical care or other correctional treatment in the most effective
    manner. And if Mr. Jensen goes out in the population on supervised
    release, the Court is not at all confident that that would take place. So
    that’s a consideration for departing upward. But the biggest one is to
    protect the public from further crimes of the defendant. That’s an
    overriding consideration. And the Court is departing upward for those
    reasons.
    2
    See United States v. Jensen, 
    423 F.3d 851
     (8th Cir. 2005); United States v.
    Jensen, 
    639 F.3d 802
     (8th Cir. 2011).
    -2-
    See 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a)(2)(D).
    This court reviews the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for violation
    of supervised release “under the same reasonableness standard that applies to initial
    sentencing proceedings.” United States v. Benton, 
    627 F.3d 1051
    , 1055 (8th Cir.
    2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). This court reviews for abuse
    of discretion a sentence’s substantive reasonableness. Gall v. United States, 
    552 U.S. 38
    , 51 (2007). “A district court abuses its discretion and imposes an unreasonable
    sentence when it . . . considers the appropriate factors but commits a clear error of
    judgment in weighing those factors.” United States v. Fronk, 
    606 F.3d 452
    , 454 (8th
    Cir. 2010). A district court has “wide latitude to weigh the § 3553(a) factors in each
    case and assign some factors greater weight than others in determining an appropriate
    sentence.” United States v. Bridges, 
    569 F.3d 374
    , 379 (8th Cir. 2009). “[I]t will be
    the unusual case when we reverse a district court sentence—whether within, above,
    or below the applicable Guidelines range—as substantively unreasonable.” United
    States v. Feemster, 
    572 F.3d 455
    , 464 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc).
    “The district court may vary from the guidelines as long as it considers the
    extent of the deviation and ensures that the justification is sufficiently compelling to
    support the degree of the variance.” United States v. Jones, 
    701 F.3d 327
    , 329, 330,
    331 (8th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (affirming upward
    variance, noting the district court’s “grave concern about the seriousness of
    [defendant’s] offenses and the fact that [defendant had] committed similar offenses
    in the past”). “Although we may consider the extent of the district court’s variance,
    we give due deference to the court’s decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on a whole,
    justify the extent of the variance.” Id. at 330 (citation omitted).
    The district court did not abuse its discretion in its review of the § 3553(a)
    factors, by emphasizing the need to protect the public from Jensen, or in its
    consideration of his mental health needs. See Bridges, 
    569 F.3d at 379
    . See also
    -3-
    United States v. Jones, 
    612 F.3d 1040
    , 1045, 1046 (8th Cir. 2010) (affirming upward
    variance where defendant’s crime “was heinous and called for a lengthy sentence .
    . . in part because of his criminal history, which suggests that incarceration is
    necessary to protect the public”); United States v. Braggs, 
    511 F.3d 808
    , 811, 813
    (8th Cir. 2008) (affirming upward variance where the district court “did not believe
    . . . that the sentencing objectives of punishment and deterrence and the protection of
    the public from further crimes by the defendant would be met by a sentence within
    the guideline range”); United States v. Singletary, 
    421 Fed. Appx. 657
    , 658, 659 (8th
    Cir. 2011) (unpublished) (affirming upward variance, as the court “had before it
    [defendant’s] PSR detailing his extensive history of criminal behavior, which
    suggested to the court that a lengthy prison term was required to protect the public”).
    *******
    The judgment is affirmed.
    ______________________________
    -4-