United States v. Ronald Christy

11 F. App'x 662
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedApril 12, 2001
Docket00-2858
StatusUnpublished

This text of 11 F. App'x 662 (United States v. Ronald Christy) 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. Ronald Christy, 11 F. App'x 662 (8th Cir. 2001).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In 1989, Ronald Dale Christy pleaded guilty to bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (g), and was sentenced to 51 months imprisonment — to run consecutively to another federal sen-fence — and 3 years supervised release. While Mr. Christy was serving the supervised release portion of his sentence, his probation officer filed a violation report alleging that Mr. Christy had violated several release conditions. After a hearing, the district court 1 found that he had violated his release conditions, revoked supervised release, and sentenced Mr. Christy to 24 months imprisonment. He now appeals, challenging the district court’s factual determinations, the length of his revocation sentence, and the district court’s jurisdiction. We affirm.

Having reviewed the record and Mr. Christy’s brief, we first conclude the district court’s factual findings were not clearly erroneous, given Mr. Christy’s concession at the revocation hearing that he violated two supervised-release conditions, and the probation officer’s testimony that Mr. Christy was arrested and charged with a drug-related offense, in violation of another condition. See United States v. Bad Wound, 203 F.3d 1072, 1076 (8th Cir. 2000) (standard of review). Next, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a 24-month revocation sentence. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a), 3559(a)(3), 3583(e)(3); United States v. Shaw, 180 F.3d 920, 922-23 (8th Cir.1999) (per curiam); United States v. Grimes, 54 F.3d 489, 492 (8th Cir.1995) (standard of review). Finally, we reject as meritless Mr. Christy’s jurisdictional argument, because the district court’s 1989 judgment and commitment order specified that he would be subject to supervised release.

Accordingly, we affirm.

1

. The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, 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. James Grimes
54 F.3d 489 (Eighth Circuit, 1995)
United States v. Shannon Shaw
180 F.3d 920 (Eighth Circuit, 1999)
United States v. John Bad Wound
203 F.3d 1072 (Eighth Circuit, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
11 F. App'x 662, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-ronald-christy-ca8-2001.