United States v. Philip Maccani

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 18, 2024
Docket23-2983
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Philip Maccani (United States v. Philip Maccani) 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. Philip Maccani, (8th Cir. 2024).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 23-2983 ___________________________

United States of America,

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,

v.

Philip Maccani, also known as Phillip Maccani,

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant. ____________

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

Submitted: December 28, 2023 Filed: January 18, 2024 [Unpublished] ____________

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

PER CURIAM.

Philip Maccani appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to 9 months in prison and 2 years of supervised release. His

1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief challenging the findings of certain violations and the reasonableness of the revocation sentence. In a pro se brief, Maccani challenges the violations.

Upon careful review, we conclude the district court did not clearly err in finding that Maccani violated his supervised release. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 914 (8th Cir. 2009). We also conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Maccani. The sentence was within the advisory guideline range. There is no indication the district court failed to consider a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors. See Miller, 557 F.3d at 915-16; United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 923 (8th Cir. 2006); see also United States v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107, 1110 (8th Cir. 2008). The revocation sentence was below the statutory maximum. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(b)(2), (e)(3), (h).

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm. ______________________________

-2-

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

Related

United States v. Duane Larison
432 F.3d 921 (Eighth Circuit, 2006)
United States v. Perkins
526 F.3d 1107 (Eighth Circuit, 2008)
United States v. Miller
557 F.3d 910 (Eighth Circuit, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Philip Maccani, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-philip-maccani-ca8-2024.