United States v. Stephen White ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                  United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 13-1809
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    Stephen Eugene White
    lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
    ____________
    Submitted: August 1, 2013
    Filed: August 8, 2013
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before WOLLMAN, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Stephen White directly appeals the eleven-month prison term that the district
    1
    court imposed upon revoking his supervised release. His counsel has moved to
    1
    The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, United States District Judge for the Eastern
    District of Missouri.
    withdraw, and has filed a brief indicating that there is no issue of arguable merit in
    this case.
    Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court imposed a statutorily
    authorized revocation sentence, given that White’s underlying offense was a Class C
    felony. See 
    18 U.S.C. § 3583
    (e)(3) (court may impose revocation sentence of no
    more than 2 years in prison if underlying offense was Class C felony). We further
    conclude that the district court’s sentencing decision reflects no abuse of discretion.
    See United States v. Miller, 
    557 F.3d 910
    , 915-16 (8th Cir. 2009) (court reviews
    revocation sentencing decisions using same standards as applied to initial sentencing
    decisions); United States v. Perkins, 
    526 F.3d 1107
    , 1110 (8th Cir. 2008) (appellate
    court reviews revocation sentence for abuse of discretion, ensuring sentence is
    reasonable); see also United States v. Feemster, 
    572 F.3d 455
    , 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en
    banc) (describing ways in which district court might be found to have committed
    abuse of discretion).
    The judgment is affirmed. In addition, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-1809

Judges: Wollman, Gruender, Benton

Filed Date: 8/8/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024