United States v. Shanita Gray

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedJuly 31, 2025
Docket25-2275
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Shanita Gray (United States v. Shanita Gray) 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. Shanita Gray, (8th Cir. 2025).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 25-2275 ___________________________

United States of America

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Shanita Gray

Defendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________

Submitted: July 18, 2025 Filed: July 31, 2025 [Unpublished] ____________

Before LOKEN, SHEPHERD, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Shanita Gray appeals from the district court’s 1 order modifying her conditions of pretrial release. An original condition of her pretrial release was courtesy

1 The Honorable Matthew T. Schelp, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, adopting the orders modifying conditions of release of the Honorable Rodney H. Holmes, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. supervision by the Northern District of Georgia Pretrial Services Office. After Gray violated conditions of pretrial release several times, the Northern District of Georgia terminated its courtesy supervision.

Following a bond revocation hearing, the magistrate judge ordered Gray to relocate to the Eastern District of Missouri for supervision by its Pretrial Services Office. Gray’s new conditions of pretrial release restrict travel to the Eastern District of Missouri and require participation in the Location Monitoring Program. After a thorough review of the record, we find that the new conditions of pretrial release are supported by the proceedings below. See United States v. Rueben, 974 F.2d 580, 586 (5th Cir. 1992) (absent an error of law, an appellate court must affirm a district court’s order on conditions for release when it is supported by the evidence in the record).

We affirm the district court’s order modifying the conditions of pretrial release. ______________________________

-2-

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

Related

United States v. Mauricio Rueben and Gerardo Guerra
974 F.2d 580 (Fifth Circuit, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Shanita Gray, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-shanita-gray-ca8-2025.