United States v. Orlando Straw, No. 10-2991 (8th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Sentence imposed upon revocation of defendant's supervised release was not unreasonable, and the district court did not err in imposing a no-contact order as part of the special conditions of defendant's supervised release.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 10-2991 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Orlando Straw, Appellant. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Northern * District of Iowa. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: December 22, 2010 Filed: December 23, 2010 ___________ Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. In this direct criminal appeal, Orlando Straw challenges the sentence the district court imposed after revoking his supervised release. In particular, he challenges (1) the length of his prison term, and (2) a no-contact order imposed as a special condition of his supervised release. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose an unreasonable term of imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3); United States v. Thunder, 553 F.3d 605, 609 (8th Cir. 2009) (revocation sentence 1 1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. above Guidelines range was not substantively unreasonable where defendant repeatedly violated supervised release); United States v. Tyson, 413 F.3d 824, 825 (8th Cir. 2005) (standard of review). We further conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the no-contact order. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)(1)-(3) (factors for court to consider in ordering special condition of supervised release); United States v. Simons, 614 F.3d 475, 478 (8th Cir. 2010) (standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We also grant counsel s motion to withdraw. ______________________________ -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.
