United States v. Daryel Oliver , 258 F. App'x 912 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 06-1906
    ___________
    United States of America,                *
    *
    Appellee,                   *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                                 * District Court for the
    * Eastern District of Missouri.
    Daryel Oliver,                           *
    * [UNPUBLISHED]
    Appellant.                  *
    ___________
    Submitted: December 13, 2007
    Filed: December 21, 2007
    ___________
    Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Daryel Oliver--proceeding pro se upon his own motion, but with court-
    appointed standby counsel--appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after
    revoking his supervised release. We hold that the district court did not clearly err in
    finding that Oliver had violated the conditions of his supervised release, and thus we
    conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in revoking his supervised release.
    See 
    18 U.S.C. § 3583
    (e)(3) (permitting revocation of supervised release if court finds
    by preponderance of evidence that defendant violated condition of supervised release);
    1
    The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, United States District Judge for the Eastern
    District of Missouri.
    United States v. Edwards, 
    400 F.3d 591
    , 592 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (given
    defendant’s admission of violation of supervised-release condition, concluding that
    district court did not clearly err in its factual findings supporting revocation and did
    not abuse its discretion in deciding to revoke supervised release).
    We further hold that Oliver’s 33-month prison sentence is reasonable, as it is
    below the applicable statutory maximum and within the advisory Guidelines range,
    and it resulted from the district court’s consideration of the appropriate statutory
    factors. See 
    18 U.S.C. § 3583
    (e)(3); United States v. Nelson, 
    453 F.3d 1004
    , 1006 (8th
    Cir. 2006); United States v. Tyson, 
    413 F.3d 824
    , 825-26 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam).
    As to the remaining issues properly presented on appeal, we conclude that none were
    preserved in the district court, and thus our review is for plain error only. See Fed. R.
    Crim. P. 52(b). Upon such review, we find no basis for reversal. The district court
    did not plainly err in declining to give Oliver credit toward his revocation sentence for
    time that was credited against a state-court sentence. See 
    18 U.S.C. § 3585
    (b);
    Johnson v. United States, 
    529 U.S. 694
    , 700-01 (2000). The district court did not
    plainly err in fashioning new conditions of supervised-release. See U.S.S.G.
    § 5D1.3(b); United States v. Henkel, 
    358 F.3d 1013
    , 1015 (8th Cir. 2004). And the
    record does not support a finding of governmental misconduct in connection with the
    revocation of supervised release or the resulting sentence.
    Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed, and Oliver’s
    motions for appointment of new standby counsel are denied.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-1906

Citation Numbers: 258 F. App'x 912

Judges: Wollman, Colloton, Benton

Filed Date: 12/21/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024