United States v. Lester Erby

329 F. App'x 679
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedAugust 3, 2009
Docket09-1751
StatusUnpublished

This text of 329 F. App'x 679 (United States v. Lester Erby) 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. Lester Erby, 329 F. App'x 679 (8th Cir. 2009).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Lester D. Erby appeals the district court’s 1 decision to revoke his supervised release and the court’s imposition of a 10-month prison term as his revocation sentence.

Upon review, we conclude that the district court properly revoked Erby’s supervised release, see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g)(4) (If defendant “as part of drug testing, tests positive for illegal controlled substances more than 3 times over the course of 1 year[,] the court shall revoke the term of supervised release and require the defendant to serve a term of imprisonment not to exceed the maximum term of imprisonment authorized under subsection (e)(3).”), and that the revocation sentence — which was imposed following the court’s consideration of the applicablé advisory Guidelines range and appropriate sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) — is not unreasonable, see U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4 (policy statement) (advisory Guidelines range for Grade C violation and Category IV criminal history is 6-12 months in prison); 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (specifying sentencing factors courts must consider in revocation decision); United States v. Nelson, 453 F.3d 1004, 1006 (8th Cir.2006) (appellate court reviews revocation sentence to determine whether it is unreasonable in relation to, inter alia, advisory Guidelines range and § 3553(a) factors); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (for Class C felony, maximum term of imprisonment upon revocation of supervised release is 2 years).

Accordingly, we affirm. We also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, subject to counsel informing appellant about procedures for seeking rehearing and filing a petition for certiorari.

1

. The Honorable Dean Whipple, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

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

Related

United States v. Michael Nelson
453 F.3d 1004 (Eighth Circuit, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
329 F. App'x 679, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-lester-erby-ca8-2009.