United States v. Kenneth Still , 358 F. App'x 757 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                       United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 08-2623
    ___________
    United States of America,                 *
    *
    Appellee,                    *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                                  * District Court for the
    * Southern District of Iowa.
    Kenneth Jay Still,                        *
    *      [UNPUBLISHED]
    Appellant.                   *
    ___________
    Submitted: November 18, 2009
    Filed: December 29, 2009
    ___________
    Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    In this direct criminal appeal, Kenneth Still challenges the 24-month prison
    term the district court1 imposed after revoking his supervised release. Still argues that
    the court erred in revoking his supervised release, that his sentence is unreasonable,
    and that his counsel was ineffective. Still’s counsel has moved to withdraw, and Still
    has filed a pro se motion for reconsideration of this court’s earlier denial of his motion
    for appointment of new counsel.
    1
    The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern
    District of Iowa.
    Upon careful review, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion
    in revoking Still’s supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (court may revoke
    supervised release if it finds by preponderance of evidence that defendant violated
    conditions of supervised release); United States v. Edwards, 
    400 F.3d 591
    , 592 (8th
    Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (“Given [defendant’s] admission of the violation, we find no
    clear error in the district court’s findings of fact supporting the revocation and no
    abuse of discretion in the decision to revoke.”). Furthermore, we conclude that the
    revocation sentence is not unreasonable. See United States v. Tyson, 
    413 F.3d 824
    ,
    825 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (revocation sentences are reviewed for
    unreasonableness in accordance with United States v. Booker, 
    543 U.S. 220
     (2005)).
    The sentence is within the statutory limits of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3), and the district
    court adequately considered the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See 18 U.S.C.
    § 3583(e) (before revoking supervised release and imposing sentence, court must
    consider specified factors in § 3553(a), including § 3553(a)(1) (nature and
    circumstances of offense and history and characteristics of defendant)); United States
    v. Franklin, 
    397 F.3d 604
    , 606-07 (8th Cir. 2005) (court need only consider relevant
    matters, and need not make specific findings on each § 3553(a) factor); see also
    United States v. Lewis, 
    519 F.3d 822
    , 824-25 (8th Cir. 2008) (district courts need not
    consider effect of prior revocation prison sentences).
    Last, we decline to consider Still’s ineffective-assistance claim. See United
    States v. Hughes, 
    330 F.3d 1068
    , 1069 (8th Cir. 2003) (ineffective-assistance claim
    is more properly reviewed in habeas proceedings).
    Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, deny Still’s pending
    motion, and affirm.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-2623

Citation Numbers: 358 F. App'x 757

Judges: Murphy, Colloton, Shepherd

Filed Date: 12/29/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024