United States of America v. Darius Omar Akheen Rhone

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-3103
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Darius Omar Akheen Rhone
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa
____________
Submitted: March 11, 2024
Filed: June 27, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, SHEPHERD, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Darius Rhone appeals the district court’s1 order sentencing him to 11 months
of imprisonment for violating the terms of his supervised release. He argues his
sentence is substantively unreasonable. We affirm.
1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern
District of Iowa.

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
In 2015, Rhone pled guilty to one count of unlawfully possessing a firearm
and ammunition as a prohibited person. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3). The district
court sentenced him to 60 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised
release. While on supervised release, the United States Probation Office filed a
petition accusing Rhone of failing on six occasions to report for random drug testing,
and noting Rhone committed new state law violations by driving while under the
influence of alcohol and interfering with official acts. When he was arrested for
driving under the influence, Rhone refused to comply with the police officers’
commands and to take a preliminary breath test, while also shouting obscenities at
the officers.
The district court revoked Rhone’s supervised release, sentencing him to 11
months of imprisonment—the top of the range calculated under the United States
Sentencing Guidelines Manual—followed by one year of supervised release. Rhone
argues this sentence is substantively unreasonable, accusing the district court of
failing to properly weigh the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, including his
mitigating circumstances.
“We review the substantive reasonableness of a revocation sentence for an
abuse of discretion, and generally defer to the district court’s judgment.” United
States v. Dennis, 35 F.4th 1116, 1118 (8th Cir. 2022) (cleaned up) (quoting United
States v. Steele, 899 F.3d 635, 638 (8th Cir. 2018)). “We apply ‘the same
reasonableness standard that applies to initial sentencing proceedings.’” Id. (quoting
United States v. Boelter, 806 F.3d 1134, 1136 (8th Cir. 2015)). A district court
abuses its discretion if it “fails to consider a relevant factor that should have received
significant weight, gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or
considers only the appropriate factors but commits a clear error of judgment in
weighing those factors.” United States v. Miller, 34 F.4th 663, 665 (8th Cir. 2022)
(per curiam) (quoting United States v. Ceballos-Santa Cruz, 756 F.3d 635, 637 (8th
Cir. 2014) (per curiam)). No such abuse of discretion occurred here.

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
The district court expressly stated it imposed the sentence in light of the
applicable factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (listing the
factors a district court is to consider when revoking a term of supervised release).
The district court discussed several of those factors in detail, opining on Rhone’s
history and characteristics, the nature of his prior convictions, his poor behavior
while in prison, and his history of noncompliance while on supervision. See id.
§ 3553(a). Contrary to Rhone’s assertions, the district court considered and weighed
his proffered mitigating circumstances, such as his employment, his history of drug
addiction, and the recent death of his brother. In evaluating the sentencing factors,
the district court thought the nature of Rhone’s offense and his numerous violations
outweighed his mitigating circumstances, so it sentenced Rhone to the top of the
Guidelines’ range. This was not an abuse of discretion.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court.
______________________________

-- 3 of 3 --