United States of America v. Keenyn Edward Hickman

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-2132
___________________________
United States of America,
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,
v.
Keenyn Edward Hickman,
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant.
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern
____________
Submitted: November 13, 2023
Filed: February 23, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before COLLOTON, WOLLMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Keenyn Hickman appeals a sentence imposed by the district court after a
revocation of supervised release. We conclude that there was no error and affirm the
judgment.

-- 1 of 3 --

Hickman served a period of incarceration and a term of supervised release after
a conviction for a drug trafficking offense in 2011. He violated the conditions of
supervised release nine times, and the court modified the terms in response. Hickman
then admitted in 2023 to four more violations: (1) refusal to submit a urine sample;
(2) failure to submit an undiluted urine sample that was suitable for testing; (3) failure
to report a change in employment; and (4) failure to report to the probation office.
The district court* revoked Hickman’s term of supervised release and imposed
a term of six months’ imprisonment to be followed by a term of 24 months of
supervised release. As special conditions of supervised release, the court ordered
Hickman to participate in a residential reentry program for up to 120 days and to
abide by a curfew for 120 days after release from any residential reentry center.
Hickman raised no objection.
Hickman argues that the district court erred by imposing a sentence above the
advisory guideline range without explanation. This claim of procedural error has no
merit. The court incorporated by reference the probation office’s revocation
worksheet, and the worksheet set forth the advisory guideline range of three to nine
months’ imprisonment. The court then selected a sentence within that range, so there
was no need to justify a variance from the range. Hickman argues that the time he
must spend in a residential reentry program and under curfew supervision amounts
to an additional term of imprisonment, but those aspects of the sentence are
conditions of supervised release. Although the parties in Elwood v. Jeter, 386 F.3d
842 (8th Cir. 2004), agreed that the Bureau of Prisons could designate a Community
Corrections Center as a prisoner’s place of imprisonment, id. at 847, the governing
statutes are clear that a court may, as here, require participation in a community
*The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for
the Southern District of Iowa.
-2-

-- 2 of 3 --

corrections program as a condition of supervised release. See 18 U.S.C.
§§ 3563(b)(11), (19), 3583(d); USSG § 5D1.3(e)(1), (5) (2021).
Hickman also contends that the sentence is unreasonable because the district
court gave significant weight to an improper factor. We review the court’s decision
under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard and presume that a sentence within
the advisory range is reasonable. United States v. Outlaw, 946 F.3d 1015, 1020 (8th
Cir. 2020). The court expressed concern that Hickman’s failure to participate in drug
testing and to maintain employment raised “red flags in terms of more serious
substance abuse.” Hickman objects that the court placed undue weight on the nature
of the violations and overstated his substance abuse problem. The district court,
however, reasonably inferred that Hickman was attempting to hide his substance
abuse by diluting one urine sample and failing to provide another. The court’s
decision to impose a sentence in the heart of the advisory range was not unreasonable.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
______________________________
-3-

-- 3 of 3 --