Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
United States v. Jason Nicholson
Citations: 120 F.3d 271; 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 27496; 1997 WL 423123Docket: 97-1043
Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; July 29, 1997; Federal Appellate Court
Unpublished opinions may now be cited if they hold persuasive value on a material issue, provided a copy accompanies the citing document or is furnished to the court and all parties if cited orally. Jason Nicholson appeals the revocation of his supervised release by the district court. He had pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess cocaine and was sentenced to four months in prison followed by three years of supervised release. After completing his prison term, a motion to revoke his supervised release was filed due to violations, including operating a vehicle with a suspended license and failing to make child support payments. Following a hearing, the district court found Nicholson had committed grade C violations and imposed a ten-month imprisonment followed by a twenty-nine month term of supervised release. On appeal, Nicholson claims the district court abused its discretion by sentencing him based on factors outside 18 U.S.C.A. 3553, specifically his attitude, rather than the statutory sentencing considerations. The appellate court reviews revocation orders for abuse of discretion and legal questions regarding 18 U.S.C.A. 3553 and 3583 de novo. Generally, sentences following revocation will not be reversed if they appear reasoned and reasonable. Under 18 U.S.C.A. 3583(e), courts may revoke supervised release and impose prison time after considering factors from 18 U.S.C.A. 3553(a), which include the nature of the offense and the defendant's history. Key points include the rationale for sentencing, which aims to reflect the seriousness of the offense, deter criminal conduct, protect the public, and provide necessary correctional treatment. The district court is not required to make specific findings for each factor but must state the reasons for its decisions. In Mr. Nicholson's case, the court identified three Grade C violations of his supervised release: operating a vehicle without a valid license, failing to follow his probation officer's instructions, and not supporting his dependents per a court order. The court noted these violations occurred over a significant time and indicated Mr. Nicholson's noncompliance stemmed from a refusal to follow the law due to convenience. The court expressed doubt about his amenability to supervision and determined that a ten-month imprisonment followed by a 29-month supervised release would provide him an opportunity to correct his behavior. The review concluded that the district court's revocation of Mr. Nicholson's probation was reasonable, considering his history and attitude, and affirmed the sentence without finding an abuse of discretion. The order and judgment do not serve as binding precedent outside of certain legal doctrines. A Grade C violation is defined as conduct constituting a minor offense punishable by up to one year of imprisonment or any other supervision condition violation.