United States v. Aaron Nazarian , 672 F. App'x 617 ( 2016 )

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 16-2889
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Aaron Nazarian
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield
____________
Submitted: December 22, 2016
Filed: December 30, 2016
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
While Aaron Nazarian was serving a third term of federal supervised release,
the District Court1 revoked supervised release and sentenced Nazarian to serve 12
1
The Honorable Beth Phillips, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Missouri.
months and one day in prison with no further supervised release. Nazarian appeals,
and we affirm.
For reversal, Nazarian challenges the District Court’s finding that he violated
his release conditions and the decision to revoke supervised release. This argument
fails, given Nazarian’s admissions at the revocation hearing that he violated multiple
supervised-release conditions. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (providing that a court
may revoke a term of supervised release if it “finds by a preponderance of the
evidence that the defendant violated a condition of supervised release”); United
States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 914 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review). Nazarian
also argues that the District Court committed procedural error in sentencing him and
imposed a substantively unreasonable revocation sentence. This argument fails as
well. Upon careful review of the record, we detect no procedural error. See Miller,
557 F.3d at 916 (listing sources of procedural error). Further, the revocation sentence
is not substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Merrival, 521 F.3d 889, 890
(8th Cir. 2008) (standard of review). Notably, the sentence exceeded the top of the
advisory Sentencing Guidelines range by one day in order to provide Nazarian with
the benefit of prior-custody credit. Moreover, the court expressly considered and
weighed relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors when imposing the sentence. See
Miller, 557 F.3d at 917.
We affirm the judgment and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
______________________________
-2-