UNITED STATES v. ADAMS READING (2021)

[Unpublished]

Erik Adams-Reading received a sentence of 18 months in prison for violating the conditions of supervised release. The challenge here is to the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, which was well above the recommended range under the Sentencing Guidelines. We affirm.

We conclude that Adams-Reading's sentence is substantively reasonable. See United States v. Thunder, 553 F.3d 605, 609 (8th Cir. 2009). The record establishes that the district court ¹ sufficiently considered the statutory sentencing factors, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(e)(3), and did not rely on an improper factor or commit a clear error of judgment. See United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 923–24 (8th Cir. 2006). To be sure, the court could have ordered immediate psychiatric treatment in lieu of imprisonment. But it did not abuse its discretion by making a different decision after “weigh[ing] the sentencing factors”: ordering treatment to begin later, once Adams-Reading's 18-month prison term is complete. United States v. Hall, 825 F.3d 373, 375 (8th Cir. 2016) (per curiam).²

We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.

2.   To the extent that Adams-Reading also challenges the underlying decision to revoke supervised release, we conclude that there was no abuse of discretion. See United States v. Brown, 947 F.3d 503, 505 (8th Cir. 2020).

PER CURIAM.