United States of America v. Joe Chantharath

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-2175
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Joe Chantharath
Defendant - Appellant
___________________________
No. 24-2176
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Joe Chantharath, also known as Joe Psycho, also known as Psycho
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeals from United States District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville
____________
Submitted: September 15, 2025
Filed: November 6, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
Before BENTON, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
About a month after being released from prison for selling methamphetamine,
Joe Chantharath sold methamphetamine to a confidential source. He pleaded guilty
to distributing methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and admitted to violating
the conditions of his supervised release. The district court1 varied up by 14 months,
sentencing Chantharath to 135 months in prison for the drug conviction and 24
consecutive months for the supervised release violation. Chantharath appeals.
Chantharath argues that his 135-month sentence for distribution is
substantively unreasonable. The district court found Chantharath’s quick return to
drug distribution to be “very aggravating” and concluded that he lacked respect for
the law and was highly likely to reoffend. The court did not abuse its discretion by
giving more weight to those factors than to Chantharath’s admission of guilt, consent
to a search of his home, work ethic, or nonviolent conduct. See United States v.
Dautovic, 763 F.3d 927, 934 (8th Cir. 2014) (standard of review); United States v.
Noriega, 35 F.4th 643, 652 (8th Cir. 2022) (“[R]eversal is not appropriate simply
because the district court did not weigh the § 3553(a) factors as [defendant]
preferred.”).
Chantharath also argues that his 24-month revocation sentence should have
been concurrent to his 135-month sentence for distribution. “The decision to impose
a consecutive or concurrent sentence upon revocation of supervised release is
committed to the sound discretion of the district court.” United States v. Cotroneo,
89 F.3d 510, 512–13 (8th Cir. 1996) (citations omitted). The district court did not
abuse its discretion by considering Chantharath’s mitigating factors to be
outweighed by his decision to return to drug distribution only one month after being
1 The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, then United States District Judge for the
Western District of Arkansas, now Chief Judge.

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
released from prison. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f) (“Any term of imprisonment imposed
upon the revocation of probation or supervised release shall be ordered to be served
consecutively to any sentence of imprisonment that the defendant is serving . . . .”).
Affirmed.
______________________________

-- 3 of 3 --