United States v. Brenda Niehaus, No. 07-3525 (8th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Defendant's challenge to a provision of her supervised release requiring her to reside in a residential re-entery center was moot; revocation sentence, which was within statutory limits, was not unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 07-3525 ___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Northern District of Iowa. Brenda Louise Niehaus, also known as * Brenda Louise Alexander, also known * [UNPUBLISHED] as Linda Alexander, also known as * Linda Louise Alexander, * * Appellant. * ___________ Submitted: August 20, 2008 Filed: September 12, 2008 ___________ Before MURPHY, BYE, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. After revoking her supervised release, the district court1 sentenced Brenda Louise Niehaus to 7 days in prison and 1 year of supervised release with a special condition requiring her to reside in a residential re-entry center for up to 120 days. On appeal, Niehaus argues that her confinement in a residential re-entry center is 1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. unreasonable, and that her revocation sentence is greater than necessary to meet the statutory goals of sentencing. Niehaus s challenge to this condition of her sentence is moot because she has been released from the residential re-entry center. Cf. Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 5-7, 18 (1998) (habeas challenge to parole revocation became moot upon expiration of sentence). After careful review, we conclude that her revocation sentence, which is within statutory limits, see 18 U.S.C. ยง 3583, is not unreasonable, see United States v. Tyson, 413 F.3d 824, 825-26 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (court reviews revocation sentences under unreasonableness standard announced in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 258-63 (2005)); see also United States v. Long Soldier, 431 F. 3d 1120, 1123 (8th Cir. 2005) (reasonableness of sentence is reviewed for abuse of discretion, which occurs if court fails to consider relevant factor that should have received significant weight, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or considers only appropriate factors but commits clear error of judgment in weighing factors). Accordingly, we grant counsel s motion to withdraw, and 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.
