United States v. Todd Brave Crow, No. 05-3968 (8th Cir. 2006)

 Annotate this Case

Court Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Revocation sentence was not unreasonable as it was within authorized limits and was based upon consideration of the appropriate factors.

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 05-3968 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Todd Brave Crow, Appellant. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * District of South Dakota. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: October 19, 2006 Filed: October 20, 2006 ___________ Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Todd Brave Crow pleaded guilty to assault resulting in serious bodily injury, and was sentenced to 33 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release. After Brave Crow began serving his supervised release, the probation officer petitioned for revocation, alleging that Brave Crow had violated his release conditions. Brave Crow admitted violating the conditions of his supervised release as alleged. At a subsequent revocation hearing, the district court1 revoked supervised release and imposed a new sentence of 24 months in prison, commenting on the Chapter 7 1 The Honorable Charles B. Kornmann, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota. Guidelines recommended range, Brave Crow s prior and current supervised release violations, and his failure to pay restitution, and also noting that due to his record leniency was not appropriate. Brave Crow appeals his revocation sentence. The revocation sentence was within authorized limits, and the district court considered appropriate factors in imposing it. See 18 U.S.C. ยงยง 3553(a), 3583(e)(3). We conclude that Brave Crow s sentence is not unreasonable. See United States v. Tyson, 413 F.3d 824, 825 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (revocation sentences are reviewed for unreasonableness in accordance with United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005)). Accordingly, we affirm. ______________________________ -2-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.