United States of America v. Eagle Wind Lajeunesse

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-2716
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Eagle Wind Lajeunesse
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota
____________
Submitted: June 8, 2026
Filed: August 4, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before COLLOTON, Chief Judge, ARNOLD and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Eagle Wind Lajeunesse pled guilty to one count of abusive sexual contact and
was sentenced to 120 months of imprisonment followed by a lifetime term of
supervised release. Since being released from prison, Lajeunesse has violated the
conditions of his supervised release four times. Most recently, Lajeunesse violated
his release conditions by entering a private residence without permission, having

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
unsupervised contact with minors, and lying to his probation officer about the
unsupervised contact. For this violation, the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range
was 5 to 11 months of imprisonment. The district court1 varied upward and imposed
a revocation sentence of 36 months of imprisonment. Lajeunesse appeals, arguing
the sentence was substantively unreasonable. We affirm.
We review a district court’s revocation sentence for abuse of discretion.
United States v. Elbert, 20 F.4th 413, 416 (8th Cir. 2021). A district court abuses its
discretion when, in considering the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors,
“it . . . gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor.” United States v.
McGhee, 869 F.3d 703, 706 (8th Cir. 2017) (quoting United States v. Miller, 557
F.3d 910, 917 (8th Cir. 2009)).
Lajeunesse first argues the district court’s upward variance was improper
because his violation involved teenagers, not young children. We disagree.
Lajeunesse’s release conditions prohibit unauthorized contact with any minors, no
matter their age. Thus, Lajeunesse violated his supervised release conditions,
regardless of the age of the minors. We previously upheld Lajeunesse’s third
revocation sentence of 36 months of imprisonment for a similar violation involving
minors. See United States v. Lajeunesse, No. 22-1365, 2022 WL 11485476, at *2
(8th Cir. Oct. 20, 2022). And “we have repeatedly stated that variances are
appropriate based on repeated violations of supervised release . . . .” United States
v. Hall, 931 F.3d 694, 698 (8th Cir. 2019). So the district court did not abuse its
discretion when it varied upward based on Lajeunesse’s repeated violations of his
supervised release.
Lajeunesse next argues the district court based the upward variance on an
improper factor, his original offense. We disagree. As the district court explained,
Lajeunesse has an extensive history of violating the conditions of his supervised
1 The Honorable Michael J. Davis, United States District Judge for the District
of Minnesota.

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
release and the nature of the current offense warranted an upward variance. The
record confirms Lajeunesse’s repeated violations of his release terms. The district
court based its sentencing on Lajeunesse’s violations, not his original offense. As a
result, the district court did not abuse its discretion when considering these factors
for imposing an upward variance. See § 3553(a)(1).
We affirm the district court’s judgment.
______________________________

-- 3 of 3 --