United States v. Marcus McIntosh ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 10-1310
    ___________
    United States of America,                *
    *
    Appellee,                   * Appeal from the United States
    * District Court for the
    v.                                 * Western District of Missouri.
    *
    Marcus McIntosh,                         *      [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Appellant.                  *
    ___________
    Submitted: November 4, 2010
    Filed: November 8, 2010
    ___________
    Before BYE, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    In this direct criminal appeal, Marcus McIntosh challenges the 18-month prison
    term the District Court1 imposed after revoking his supervised release. McIntosh
    argues that (1) the District Court erred in revoking his supervised release because the
    sweat-patch test results presented by the government were unreliable and (2) his
    revocation sentence is unreasonable because it exceeds the applicable advisory
    Guidelines range and is inconsistent with 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a).
    1
    The Honorable Dean Whipple, United States District Judge for the Western
    District of Missouri.
    We first conclude that the District Court did not err in revoking McIntosh's
    supervised release because, notwithstanding his argument regarding the sweat-patch
    test results, he admitted at the revocation hearing that he violated his supervised-
    release conditions on several occasions. See 
    18 U.S.C. § 3583
    (e)(3) (stating that a
    court may revoke supervised release if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that
    the defendant violated conditions of his supervised release); United States v. Edwards,
    
    400 F.3d 591
    , 592 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) ("Given [the defendant's] admission
    of the violation, we find no clear error in the district court's findings of fact supporting
    the revocation and no abuse of discretion in the decision to revoke [his] supervised
    release.").
    We further conclude that McIntosh's sentence is not unreasonable. See United
    States v. Tyson, 
    413 F.3d 824
    , 825 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (noting that
    revocation sentences are reviewed for unreasonableness in accordance with United
    States v. Booker, 
    543 U.S. 220
     (2005)). McIntosh's sentence is within the statutory
    limits of 
    18 U.S.C. § 3583
    , and the District Court adequately considered the relevant
    
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a) factors. See 
    18 U.S.C. § 3583
    (e) (stating that before revoking
    supervised release and imposing sentence, a district court must consider specified
    factors in § 3553(a), including the nature and circumstances of the offense and the
    history and characteristics of the defendant pursuant to § 3553(a)(1)); United States
    v. Franklin, 
    397 F.3d 604
    , 606–07 (8th Cir. 2005) (noting that a court need only
    consider relevant matters and need not make specific findings on each § 3553(a)
    factor); see also United States v. Gray, 
    533 F.3d 942
    , 943–44 (8th Cir. 2008)
    (observing that a district court is presumed to know the law and to understand its
    obligation to consider the § 3553(a) factors; in determining whether a district court
    considered the relevant factors, an appellate court reviews the entire sentencing
    record, not merely the district court's statements at the sentencing hearing).
    Accordingly, we affirm. In addition, we grant counsel's motion to withdraw.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-1310

Judges: Bye, Bowman, Colloton

Filed Date: 11/8/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024