Submitted: May 18, 2018
from United States District Court for the District of South
Dakota - Aberdeen
SHEPHERD, KELLY, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
SHEPHERD, CIRCUIT JUDGE.
James DeMarrias appeals his sentence of a lifetime term of
supervised release. We affirm.
March 2010, 21-year-old DeMarrias engaged in sexual acts with
a 12-year-old female. He later pled guilty to sexual abuse of
a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153 and
2243(a), and the district court sentenced him to 37 months
imprisonment to be followed by 10 years of supervised
release. His supervised release commenced in May 2013, but
was revoked two times: in May 2014, after he assaulted a
staff member and was terminated from his placement center,
and in May 2015, after he was again terminated from his
placement center. Following each revocation, the district
court sentenced DeMarrias to 12 months imprisonment and 3
years of supervised release.
November 2016, DeMarrias admitted to having violated the
terms of his supervised release yet a third time by
assaulting a police officer. The district court held a
revocation hearing on January 5, 2017 ("initial
hearing"), in which the court announced its intent to
impose a sentence of 24 months imprisonment and 2 years of
supervised release. Immediately thereafter, DeMarrias's
counsel requested DeMarrias undergo a psychological
examination. The district court ordered the Bureau of Prisons
to conduct the examination and deferred imposing a sentence
until it could consider the results.
report from the examination diagnosed DeMarrias with
personality disorder with borderline antisocial
features and paraphilic disorder: a condition
characterized by abnormal sexual desires that can manifest in
deviant sexual behavior. The report found DeMarrias was at
"significant risk of recidivism" for deviant
behaviors, including sexual behavior with minors. In
conclusion, the report stated DeMarrias "should be
closely monitored upon release from incarceration,"
finding his "difficulties are of a characterological and
pervasive nature, and will likely prove, [and] have proven,
resistant to change."
receiving the report, the district court held a final
revocation hearing on June 12, 2017 ("final
hearing"). The court found the report
"alarming" and sentenced DeMarrias to 24 months
imprisonment and supervised release for life.
review a sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised
release under a "deferential-abuse-of-discretion
standard." United States v. Johnson, 827 F.3d
740, 744 (8th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted).
"This standard requires us first to ensure that the
district court committed no significant procedural error and
second, if there is no procedural error, to ensure the
sentence was substantively reasonable." Id.
(internal quotation marks omitted).
DeMarrias does not frame his argument as a procedural
challenge, he claims, in passing, that the district court
failed to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and
failed to adequately explain its reasoning, both of which
constitute procedural errors. United States v.
Williams, 624 F.3d 889, 896 (8th Cir. 2010). Thus, out
of an abundance of caution, we first consider whether the
district court erred procedurally.
revoking supervised release and imposing a new sentence, a
district court should consider the factors set forth in
§ 3553(a). The court need not, however,
"mechanically list every § 3553(a)
consideration." United States v. White Face,
383 F.3d 733, 740 (8th Cir. 2004). "If it is evident the
district court was aware of the relevant factors in imposing
the sentence, we may ...