UNITED STATES v. LAUREL OLEA (2025)

Alexander Laurel-Olea pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm as an unlawful user of a controlled substance. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3). The district court ^* sentenced Laurel-Olea to twenty-four months' imprisonment and thirty-six months of supervised release.

Laurel-Olea served his sentence and began his term of supervised release on August 30, 2022. In June 2024, Laurel-Olea was arrested by the United States Marshals Service after committing fifty-four violations of his conditions of supervised release. The district court sentenced Laurel-Olea to fourteen months' imprisonment and a one-year term of supervised release. On appeal, Laurel-Olea argues his revocation sentence is unreasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e).

We review the reasonableness of a revocation sentence under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. United States v. Michels, 49 F.4th 1146, 1148 (8th Cir. 2022). A district court abuses its discretion when it fails to consider a relevant factor that should have received significant weight, gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or considers only the appropriate factors but in weighing them commits a clear error of judgment. United States v. Fitzpatrick, 943 F.3d 838, 840 (8th Cir. 2019). “[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).

Laurel-Olea argues that the district court abused its discretion by imposing a sentence above the advisory guideline range that was “not proportionate to the offense” and that “did not sufficiently account for Mr. Laurel-Olea's mental health issues, his background, and his potential for successful reintegration into society.”

At the revocation hearing, the district court determined that the grade of violation and Laurel-Olea's criminal history resulted in an advisory guideline range of three to nine months' imprisonment. The court then considered aggravating and mitigating factors.

In mitigation, the court cited Laurel-Olea's age of twenty-four years old, his lack of an adult criminal history, his mental health and substance abuse issues, and his acceptance of responsibility. The court also considered aggravating factors: Laurel-Olea's underlying offense conduct involved formulating a plan that resulted in a dangerous shooting of a home in Sioux City. Laurel-Olea committed fifty-four violations of his conditions of release, including twenty-four skipped drug tests. He became a fugitive from justice, and his whereabouts were unknown for roughly six weeks until he was located by the Marshals Service. Laurel-Olea also made no efforts to meet his restitution obligation of $38,000.

The district court concluded that an upward variance from nine months to fourteen months' imprisonment was appropriate. The court explained that it would have selected a term of eighteen months, but wanted to give Laurel-Olea some credit for accepting responsibility. Given the several aggravating factors involved and the deference afforded to the sentencing court, the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a term of fourteen months.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.   The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.

COLLOTON, Chief Judge.