United States v. Maurice Bivens

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit·Decided December 3, 2020·No. 20-1835·Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

No. 20-1835

United States of America,

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,

v.

Maurice Leavell Bivens,

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant.

Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids

Submitted: November 12, 2020 Filed: December 3, 2020

[Unpublished]

Before COLLOTON, SHEPHERD, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Maurice Bivens appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised release and sentenced him above the advisory sentencing guideline range. His counsel has

1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.

filed a brief challenging the substantive reasonableness of the sentence and seeking to withdraw.

We conclude that the district court imposed a substantively reasonable revocation sentence, as there is no indication that the court overlooked a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the relevant factors. See United States v. McGhee, 869 F.3d 703, 705 (8th Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (substantive reasonableness of revocation sentence is reviewed under same abuse-of-discretion standard applied to initial sentencing decisions); United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (discussing substantive reasonableness). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

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

United States v. Maurice Bivens, (8th Cir. 2020).

United States v. Maurice Bivens (United States v. Maurice Bivens) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)