United States v. Jerry Ray Puckett ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 05-1476
    ___________
    United States of America,               *
    *
    Appellee,                  *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                                * District Court for the
    * Western District of Missouri.
    Jerry Ray Puckett,                      *
    * [UNPUBLISHED]
    Appellant.                 *
    ___________
    Submitted: January 5, 2006
    Filed: January 20, 2006
    ___________
    Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Jerry Ray Puckett pleaded guilty in March 2002 to being a felon in possession
    of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (a Class C felony).
    See 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2) (10-year maximum prison term for § 922(g)); 18 U.S.C.
    § 3559(a)(3) (offense classification). He was sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment
    and 3 years’ supervised release, and began serving his supervised release in June
    2004. The district court1 later revoked supervised release – upon Puckett’s admission
    1
    The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western
    District of Missouri.
    that he had violated certain release conditions – and imposed a new sentence of 6
    months imprisonment and 2 years supervised release. Puckett appeals.
    We affirm the district court’s decision to revoke Puckett’s supervised release.
    See United States v. Edwards, 
    400 F.3d 591
    , 592 (8th Cir. 2005) (given defendant’s
    admission that he had violated release conditions, there was no clear error in findings
    of fact supporting revocation and no abuse of discretion in decision to revoke). We
    also affirm the sentence the court imposed upon revocation. See United States v.
    Tyson, 
    413 F.3d 824
    , 825 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (standard of review). The
    sentence was within authorized limits. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3583(e)(3), 3583(h), 3583
    (b)(2). The hearing transcript shows that the district court considered the appropriate
    factors and imposed a sentence that was not unreasonable, and, in fact, was below the
    advisory range under the revocation guideline. See United States v. Booker, 125 S.
    Ct. 738, 764-66 (2005) (sentencing courts must consider 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors);
    
    Tyson, 413 F.3d at 825-26
    .
    Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-1476

Judges: Murphy, Colloton, Benton

Filed Date: 1/20/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024