United States v. Keith Nelson

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedNovember 15, 2019
Docket19-1339
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Keith Nelson (United States v. Keith Nelson) 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. Keith Nelson, (8th Cir. 2019).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 19-1339 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Keith Nelson

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport ____________

Submitted: November 12, 2019 Filed: November 15, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________

Before COLLOTON, BENTON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Keith Nelson appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to 24 months in prison, followed by 24 months of supervised release.

1 The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief challenging the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.

We conclude the revocation sentence is not substantively unreasonable, as the sentence was within the advisory United States Sentencing Guidelines range and the statutory requirements, see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3), (h); the district court stated it had considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and explained its reasons for the decision; and there is no indication the district court overlooked a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors, see United States v. McGhee, 869 F.3d 703, 705-06 (8th Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (revocation sentences are reviewed for abuse of discretion); United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (discussing substantive reasonableness; permitting, on appeal, presumption of reasonableness for Guidelines-range sentence). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm. ______________________________

-2-

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

Related

United States v. Feemster
572 F.3d 455 (Eighth Circuit, 2009)
United States v. Curtis Robert McGhee
869 F.3d 703 (Eighth Circuit, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Keith Nelson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-keith-nelson-ca8-2019.