United States v. John Lawrence Drennan, Jr.

82 F.3d 421, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 21210, 1996 WL 191624
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedApril 22, 1996
Docket95-2108
StatusUnpublished

This text of 82 F.3d 421 (United States v. John Lawrence Drennan, Jr.) 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. John Lawrence Drennan, Jr., 82 F.3d 421, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 21210, 1996 WL 191624 (8th Cir. 1996).

Opinion

82 F.3d 421

NOTICE: Eighth Circuit Rule 28A(k) governs citation of unpublished opinions and provides that they are not precedent and generally should not be cited unless relevant to establishing the doctrines of res judicata, collateral estoppel, the law of the case, or if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue and no published opinion would serve as well.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
John Lawrence DRENNAN, Jr., Appellant.

No. 95-2108.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted April 4, 1996.
Decided April 22, 1996.

Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

John L. Drennan, Jr., appeals from the district court's1 order imposing a ten-month term of imprisonment upon revocation of his supervised release. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising as issues whether the district court sentenced Drennan within the applicable range and whether the district court abused its discretion in imposing the ten-month sentence.

We conclude Drennan was sentenced within the proper range, and the record convinces us that the district court considered and applied the pertinent statutory and Sentencing Guidelines provisions. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); U.S.S.G. §§ 7B1.1(a)(3), 7B1.4(a). We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the sentence. See United States v. Smeathers, 930 F.2d 18, 18-19 (8th Cir.1991) (per curiam); United States v. Graves, 914 F.2d 159, 161 (8th Cir.1990) (per curiam).

In accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we have reviewed the record and have found no other nonfrivolous issues for appeal.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

1

The Honorable Elsijane Trimble Roy, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas

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

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Penson v. Ohio
488 U.S. 75 (Supreme Court, 1988)
United States v. Larry Graves, A/K/A Larry Grayes
914 F.2d 159 (Eighth Circuit, 1990)
United States v. Norman William Smeathers
930 F.2d 18 (Eighth Circuit, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
82 F.3d 421, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 21210, 1996 WL 191624, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-john-lawrence-drennan-jr-ca8-1996.