United States of America v. Rachel Louise Monthie, also known as Rachel Louise Chronister

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-2763
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Rachel Louise Monthie, also known as Rachel Louise Chronister
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids
____________
Submitted: March 11, 2024
Filed: July 5, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, SHEPHERD, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Rachel Monthie pled guilty to one count of harboring and concealing an
escapee, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1072, and the district court1 sentenced her to
time served and one year of supervised release. After Monthie violated her terms of
1 The Honorable C.J. Williams, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the Northern District of Iowa.

-- 1 of 5 --

-2-
supervised release, the district court2 sentenced her to eight months’ imprisonment,
followed by an additional four months of supervised release. Monthie appeals this
sentence, asserting that the Government failed to meet its burden of proof with
respect to two of her supervised release violations and that the sentence is
substantively unreasonable. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm
the judgment of the district court.
Monthie’s conviction arises from her conduct in helping another individual,
Ricky Joe Vaughn, escape from custody while he was on work release. Monthie
picked up Vaughn from his place of employment, watched him cut off his
Bureau-of-Prisons-issued ankle monitor, and drove him to a nearby hotel, where she
purchased three nights of lodging for him. Monthie also took Vaughn back to her
apartment, where he was ultimately apprehended by law enforcement. A search of
Monthie’s apartment revealed a 9-millimeter pistol, loaded with a round inside the
chamber. Monthie was subsequently indicted on two counts, and she pled guilty to
one count of harboring and concealing an escapee. The district court sentenced her
to time served and one year of supervised release, which began on April 20, 2023.
On June 28, 2023, the United States Probation Office filed a petition to revoke
Monthie’s supervised release, alleging that Monthie failed to comply with residential
reentry center rules on five occasions; failed to participate in substance abuse testing;
and committed a new law violation of being a felon in possession of ammunition, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), which was also a violation of a supervised release
condition prohibiting her from possessing firearms or ammunition. The district court
held an evidentiary hearing on July 28, 2023. Monthie admitted to failing to comply
with the residential reentry facility rules and failing to participate in substance abuse
testing, but contested the alleged violations relating to possession of ammunition,
asserting that she did not knowingly possess ammunition.
2 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern
District of Iowa.

-- 2 of 5 --

-3-
As evidence of the two alleged supervised release violations Monthie
contested, the Government introduced two exhibits, which were photographs of
ammunition found in the driver’s side door of Monthie’s vehicle and an ATF report
stating that the ammunition was a single 9-millimeter bullet and was manufactured
outside of Iowa. The Government also called a residential officer from the reentry
facility, who testified that she conducted a routine search of Monthie’s vehicle at the
reentry center and discovered ammunition in the driver’s side door of the car.
Government also called Monthie’s probation officer, who testified that Monthie told
her the ammunition had not been in her vehicle before she went to jail, that she did
not know where it came from, and that she hoped someone had not planted it.
Finally, the Government called a probation officer who assisted with the search of
Monthie’s vehicle at the residential reentry facility, who testified that Monthie
declined to take ownership of the ammunition, asserting that someone else must have
had the vehicle. Monthie also testified on her own behalf, asserting that the vehicle
had been out of her control during the time she was in jail and that she was unaware
that it contained ammunition. Monthie admitted, however, that no one else had been
using her car at the time it was at the residential reentry facility and that she had
driven the car 20 times during this time period.
The district court concluded, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
Monthie knowingly possessed the ammunition, stating that it found the
Government’s witnesses to be credible and Monthie not to be credible. It also
specifically noted Monthie’s admissions that she had driven the car 20 times and that
no one else had driven it and stated that the ammunition matched the caliber of the
firearm that had been recovered from her residence as part of the underlying offense.
The district court determined that Monthie’s possession of ammunition amounted to
a new law violation of being a felon in possession of ammunition and a violation of
the standard condition of supervised release that prohibited Monthie from possessing
firearms or ammunition. After calculating Monthie’s United States Sentencing
Guidelines range as 8 to 14 months’ imprisonment with a statutory maximum of 1
year imprisonment, the district court denied Monthie’s request for a downward

-- 3 of 5 --

-4-
variance and sentenced her to 8 months’ imprisonment, followed by an additional 4
months of supervised release.
Monthie appeals, asserting that the district court erred when it found she
knowingly possessed ammunition because the evidence demonstrated only that
Monthie could have been aware the ammunition was in the vehicle, not that she
knowingly possessed it. “A district court may ‘revoke supervised release if the
government proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated
a condition of supervised release.’” United States v. Staten, 990 F.3d 631, 635 (8th
Cir. 2021) (per curiam) (citation omitted). “This court reviews ‘the revocation of
supervised release for abuse of discretion, and we review any “subsidiary factfinding
as to whether or not a violation occurred” for clear error.’” United States v. Trice,
88 F.4th 738, 739 (8th Cir. 2023) (citation omitted). “Clear error exists where,
viewing the record as a whole, we are left with the definite and firm conviction that
a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Daye, 4 F.4th 698, 700 (8th Cir.
2021) (per curiam) (citation omitted).
The district court did not clearly err in concluding that Monthie knowingly
possessed the ammunition recovered from her vehicle. “A defendant knowingly
possesses [ammunition] if [s]he has actual or constructive possession of it, and the
possession can be sole or joint.” United States v. Green, 835 F.3d 844, 852 (8th Cir.
2016) (citation omitted). Constructive possession occurs where “the person has
dominion over the premises where the [ammunition] is located, or control,
ownership, or dominion over the [ammunition] itself.” Id. (citation omitted). The
facts as found by the district court support the conclusion that Monthie
constructively possessed the ammunition, and thus knowingly possessed it. The
ammunition was recovered from the driver’s side door of the vehicle, Monthie
admitted both that she had driven the car on numerous occasions while at the
residential reentry facility and that no one else had access to her vehicle, and the
caliber of ammunition matched a firearm recovered from Monthie’s residence during
the commission of the underlying offense. Further, to the extent that Monthie
asserted that someone else must have put the ammunition in her car while she was

-- 4 of 5 --

-5-
incarcerated, the district court made a specific finding that Monthie was not a
credible witness, and Monthie does not challenge the district court’s credibility
determinations on appeal. These facts sufficiently demonstrate that Monthie had
dominion or control over her vehicle, which was where the ammunition was located,
so as to have constructively possessed the ammunition.
Monthie also asserts that her sentence was substantively unreasonable.
Monthie has been released from custody and, on May 6, 2024, was discharged from
supervised release. We thus conclude that her challenge to the substantive
reasonableness of her sentence is moot. See United States v. Cole, 817 F. App’x
296 (8th Cir. 2020) (per curiam).
We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court.
______________________________

-- 5 of 5 --