Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Date: 01-03-2024
Case Style:
Case Number: 23-2453
Judge: PER CURIAM
Court: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit (St. Louis County)
Plaintiff's Attorney: The United States Attorney’s Office in St. Louis
Defendant's Attorney:
Description:
In 2013, Joshuah Landon Tiesman pled guilty to attempting and aiding and
abetting the attempt to manufacture methamphetamine near a school, in violation of
21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(C), 846, 860(a) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. The district court
sentenced him to 96 months in prison and six years of supervised release. The
district court revoked his first term of supervised release in 2022, sentencing him to
-2-
four months in prison and two years of supervised release. In 2023, he violated his
second term of supervised release. The district court1 sentenced him to 10 months
in prison and four years of supervised release. He appeals. Having jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.
Tiesman believes the district court procedurally erred by “basing its sentence
on findings that were not supported by reliable evidence.” Where, as here, a
defendant “fails to object timely to a procedural sentencing error, the error is
forfeited and may only be reviewed for plain error.” United States v. Hill, 552 F.3d
686, 690 (8th Cir. 2009). Under plain error review, the defendant must show: (1) an
error; (2) that is plain; (3) that affects substantial rights and (4) that “seriously affects
the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id.
Tiesman challenges two violations, claiming there was no evidence that: (1)
he submitted a diluted urine sample; and (2) he was not actively searching for
employment. This court need not decide whether the court erred in finding these
violations because Tiesman cannot show prejudice. In addition to the now contested
violations, Tiesman admitted, and the court found, he: failed to provide a urine
specimen for random drug testing, attempted to use someone else’s urine for drug
testing, possessed drug paraphernalia and a prescription drug without a prescription,
associated with a person engaged in criminal activity, and used cocaine and meth.
Imposing his sentence, the district court did not reference the two contested
conditions. Rather, it discussed his “substituting someone else’s urine or substance
for his urine during drug testing,” “all-encompassing addition to
methamphetamine,” failure to participate in drug treatment, and overall
unsatisfactory conduct on supervision. On this record, Tiesman cannot show a
reasonable probability that his sentence would have been different absent any
alleged error. The court did not plainly err.
1
The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern
District of Iowa.
-3-
Tiesman asserts the court’s four-year term of supervised release was
substantively unreasonable. This court reviews for abuse of discretion. United
States v. Beran, 751 F.3d 872, 875 (8th Cir. 2014). Imposing an additional term of
supervised release, the court properly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors,
including Tiesman’s serious drug addiction, noting he had “not taken what he has
learned in substance abuse treatment and applied it to his own life.” It also
considered his significant restitution obligations. It concluded he:
would benefit by further supervision by the United States Probation
Office to not only help him with his sobriety issues if he is willing to
confront those but, as Mr. Scheetz hassuggested, to help him find a safe
place to live and also find employment because he must be employed
full-time—he shouldn’t be quitting one job until he has another—all
arranged so it is a smooth transition and he can pay his restitution.
The court did not err in imposing a four-year term of supervised release. See United
States v. Barber, 4 F.4th 689, 691 (8th Cir. 2021) (affirming a term of supervised
release where the court said it was “not going to reward [the defendant] here today
for bad behavior by shortening his term of supervised release”).
Outcome:
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: