United States v. Peter Simone

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedNovember 9, 1999
Docket99-2835
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Peter Simone (United States v. Peter Simone) 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. Peter Simone, (8th Cir. 1999).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________

No. 99-2835 ___________

United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. Peter J. Simone, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. * ___________

Submitted: November 5, 1999 Filed: November 9, 1999 ___________

Before BOWMAN, FAGG, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. ___________

PER CURIAM.

Peter Simone admitted violating the condition of his supervised release which required him to participate successfully in a home detention program, and the district court1 revoked his release and sentenced him to nine months imprisonment. Simone appeals, arguing that the court imposed too harsh a sentence because it failed to consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e).

1 The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. Having reviewed the revocation hearing transcript, we conclude that the district court adequately considered the statutorily required factors and did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Simone. See United States v. Graves, 914 F.2d 159, 160-61 (8th Cir. 1990) (per curiam) (standard of review; there is no requirement that district court make specific findings relating to each of § 3553(a) factors considered); United States v. Caves, 73 F.3d 823, 825 (8th Cir. 1996) (rejecting argument that district court must state on record that it had considered sentencing factors and explain reasons for sentence imposed).

We also reject Simone’s argument that the district court failed to consider U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.2(b), p.s. (1998), which he did not raise below. See United States v. Montanye, 996 F.2d 190, 192 (8th Cir. 1993) (en banc) (standard of review).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.

-2-

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

Related

United States v. Larry Graves, A/K/A Larry Grayes
914 F.2d 159 (Eighth Circuit, 1990)
United States v. Jimmy Calvin Caves
73 F.3d 823 (Eighth Circuit, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Peter Simone, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-peter-simone-ca8-1999.