Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 10-01-2021
Case Style:
United States of America v. James Bixby
Case Number: 20-2663
Judge: Before GRUENDER, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM
Court: United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
Plaintiff's Attorney: United States Attorney’s Office
Defendant's Attorney:
Description:
St. Louis, MO - Criminal defense lawyer represented defendant with appealing after the district court1 revoked his supervised release.
To the extent Bixby challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, we conclude
that the district court did not clearly err in finding, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that Bixby violated the conditions of his supervised release by using
marijuana two times. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3); United States v. Black Bear, 542
F.3d 249, 252 (8th Cir. 2008). The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion
in revoking supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g)(4); United States v. Miller,
557 F.3d 910, 914 (8th Cir. 2009). We also conclude that the revocation sentence
was not unreasonable, as the court stated it considered all of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors that apply in a revocation hearing, and there is no indication that the court
failed to consider a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper or
irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment when it imposed a sentence
within the guidelines range. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); Miller, 557 F.3d at 917
(explaining the standard of review); United States v. Richart, 662 F.3d 1037, 1054
(8th Cir. 2011) (reiterating that the district court has wide latitude to weigh the
§ 3553(a) factors); United States v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107, 1110 (8th Cir. 2008)
(stating that a sentence within the guidelines range is accorded a presumption of
substantive reasonableness on appeal). Furthermore, the revocation sentence is
within the statutory maximum. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(b)(2), (e)(3), (h).
Outcome: Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the
judgment.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: