United States of America v. Skye L. Nelson

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 22-2466
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Skye L. Nelson
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of South Dakota - Southern
____________
Submitted: November 14, 2022
Filed: February 9, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Skye L. Nelson pled guilty to failing to register as a sex offender, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a). The district court sentenced him to 13 months in prison.
Upon release, he violated the conditions of his release. The district court1 sentenced
1 The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, United States District Judge for the
District of South Dakota.

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
him to 11 months in prison. He appeals the sentence. Having jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.
Nelson challenges the substantive reasonableness of his within-guidelines
sentence. This court reviews for abuse of discretion. United States v. Edwards, 820
F.3d 362, 366 (8th Cir. 2016). “The sentencing court abuses its discretion when it
(1) fails to consider a relevant factor that should have received significant weight;
(2) gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor; or (3) considers the
appropriate factors but commits a clear error of judgment in weighing them.” United
States v. Corey, 36 F.4th 819, 823 (8th Cir. 2022) (internal quotation marks omitted).
A sentence within the guideline range is presumptively reasonable. Id.
At sentencing, the district court relied on Nelson’s behavior during
supervised release. He became “aggressive” at his first halfway house and was
discharged “almost immediately after” he arrived. He was “disrespectful to staff” at
the second halfway house and was asked to leave. At a hotel paid for with probation
office “second-chance funds,” he violated curfew, had unauthorized guests, perhaps
allowed a drug deal in the room, and failed to wear his electronic monitor. Nelson
claims the district court placed “inordinate” weight on his multiple supervised
release revocations in an earlier case. However, a district court must consider the
history and characteristics of a defendant in fashioning a revocation sentence. See
U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(1), 3583(e). Nelson’s argument that his prior behavior on
supervised release should receive less weight is “nothing more than a disagreement
with how the district court chose to weigh the § 3553(a) factors.” United States v.
Brown, 992 F.3d 665, 673 (8th Cir. 2021). The district court properly considered
Nelson’s behavior while on supervised release in this case and his repeated
violations in his earlier case. It did not abuse its discretion.
* * * * * * *
The judgment is affirmed.
______________________________

-- 2 of 2 --