United States v. Philip Maccani
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.
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Submitted: December 28, 2023 Filed: January 18, 2024 [Unpublished] ____________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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
United States v. Philip Maccani, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-philip-maccani-ca8-2024.