United States v. John E. Brave Bird , 54 F. App'x 248 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                     United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 02-2555
    ___________
    United States of America,              *
    *
    Appellee,                  *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                               * District Court for the
    * District of South Dakota.
    John Ellis Brave Bird,                 *
    *        [UNPUBLISHED]
    Appellant.                 *
    ___________
    Submitted: January 7, 2003
    Filed: January 10, 2003
    ___________
    Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, MURPHY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    John Brave Bird appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 upon
    revocation of his supervised release. In 1998 Mr. Brave Bird was sentenced to
    30 months imprisonment and 3 years supervised release for violating 
    18 U.S.C. §§ 1153
    , 2243(a), and 2246(2)(A). In May 2002, while he was serving his supervised
    release (after release from custody on a prior revocation sentence), Mr. Brave Bird
    1
    The Honorable Charles B. Kornmann, United States District Judge for the
    District of South Dakota.
    admitted that he had violated a release condition. The district court revoked
    Mr. Brave Bird’s supervised release and sentenced him to 12 months imprisonment.
    On appeal, Mr. Brave Bird argues that the district court abused its discretion
    by imposing a prison sentence at the top of the recommended Guidelines range. After
    careful review of the record, we find that the 12-month sentence was within the limits
    of 
    18 U.S.C. § 3583
    (e)(3) and was not an abuse of discretion. Cf. United States v.
    Shaw, 
    180 F.3d 920
    , 922-23 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (where Guidelines
    recommended revocation range of 3-9 months, district court did not abuse discretion
    in imposing 24-month prison sentence in light of nature of violations, including
    repeated failure to submit urine specimens, and court’s expressed desire to ensure
    defendant would receive intensive treatment in structured environment).
    Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-2555

Citation Numbers: 54 F. App'x 248

Judges: Arnold, Murphy, Melloy

Filed Date: 1/10/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024