United States v. Eldon Philip Anderson

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Eldon Philip Anderson

651 F. App'x 568

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJune 8, 2016

Docket16-1214

StatusUnpublished

This text of 651 F. App'x 568 (United States v. Eldon Philip Anderson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Eldon Philip Anderson, 651 F. App'x 568 (8th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

*569 PER CURIAM.

Eldon Anderson appeals the district court’s 1 order modifying his supervised release conditions to add a special condition that he reside for a period of up to 120 days in a residential reentry center, as approved by his probation officer. Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in adding the condition, see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2); and additionally, we decline to consider Anderson’s attempt, in his pro se submissions before us, to collaterally attack his underlying conviction, see United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 913 (8th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw, and we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*569 PER CURIAM.

Eldon Anderson appeals the district court’s 1 order modifying his supervised release conditions to add a special condition that he reside for a period of up to 120 days in a residential reentry center, as approved by his probation officer. Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in adding the condition, see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2); and additionally, we decline to consider Anderson’s attempt, in his pro se submissions before us, to collaterally attack his underlying conviction, see United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 913 (8th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw, and we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

651 F. App'x 568, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-eldon-philip-anderson-ca8-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack