United States of America v. Michael L. Cravens, Jr.

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 22-3293
___________________________
United States of America,
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,
v.
Michael L. Cravens, Jr.,
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant.
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau
____________
Submitted: June 12, 2023
Filed: August 1, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Michael Cravens, Jr., pleaded guilty to escape from a residential re-entry
center. He was assigned to serve time at the center as part of a sentence for

-- 1 of 4 --

unlawfully possessing a firearm as a previously convicted felon. The district court1
sentenced him to thirty months’ imprisonment for the escape. Cravens appeals the
sentence, arguing that it is unreasonable because the district court gave insufficient
weight to mitigating factors and imposed a sentence that is greater than necessary.
We affirm.
In 2015, Cravens was convicted of the firearms offense. In November 2021,
he was transferred to a residential reentry center in Missouri to serve the remainder
of his sentence. On April 5, 2022, Cravens met with a probation officer as part of the
reentry process. Cravens told the officer that he needed to be transferred to a
different reentry center, and threatened to escape or “catch an assault charge” if his
demands were not met. Cravens later stated that his frustration stemmed from being
forced to quit well-paying jobs due to the reentry center’s policies.
On April 15, 2022, Cravens escaped from the reentry center. Police officers
found him on April 29 when they conducted a traffic stop of the vehicle that Cravens
was driving. Cravens exited the vehicle and fled on foot. Officers later found
Cravens hiding in the attic of a nearby residence and arrested him.
Cravens pleaded guilty to a charge of escape. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 751, 4082. At
sentencing, the district court calculated an advisory guideline range of twenty-seven
to thirty-three months’ imprisonment and imposed a term of thirty months’
imprisonment. Cravens argues that the sentence is unreasonable.
We review the reasonableness of a sentence under a deferential abuse-of-
discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Cravens’ sentence
was within the range recommended by the Sentencing Commission, so we presume
1The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Missouri.
-2-

-- 2 of 4 --

that it is reasonable. United States v. Barron, 557 F.3d 866, 870 (8th Cir. 2009); see
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347 (2007).
Cravens argues that the district court gave insufficient weight to mitigating
factors, including his commission of a non-violent escape offense, his focus on
securing employment, his struggles with impulse control, and his exposure to abuse
and drugs from a young age. Cravens also argues that the sentence is greater than
necessary because escape from a non-secure residential reentry center is less violent
than other forms of escape prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 751(a).
The court confirmed at sentencing that it was “considering all of the mitigating
points” raised by Cravens. The sentencing statute gives the district court wide
latitude to weigh the relevant factors in each case. The pre-sentence report, to which
Cravens did not object, detailed his history of violent behavior, including his assault
of another inmate causing an orbital fracture, a home-invasion where he shot an
occupant of the house, and his threat to kill two individuals while brandishing a
handgun. The court properly considered this history of violence, and the need to
protect the public, in declining to impose a more lenient sentence. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a)(1), (2)(C). The asserted mitigating factors were not so compelling that it
was unreasonable for the court to treat Cravens as a typical offender who should be
sentenced within the advisory guideline range.
Cravens also complains about a comment by the sentencing judge at the
hearing. The judge originally told Cravens that he intended to impose a sentence at
the top of the guideline range “because that’s what you deserve,” but then modified
his thinking in light of “all of the mitigating points.” Cravens suggests that the
judge’s original comment shows an abuse of discretion. But there is nothing wrong
with the judge stating an original inclination and then adjusting that inclination based
on mitigating evidence and argument. The course of proceedings shows that Cravens
successfully persuaded the court to impose a less severe sentence than he might have
-3-

-- 3 of 4 --

received, and the court properly exercised its discretion in light of the record as a
whole.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
______________________________
-4-

-- 4 of 4 --