United States v. Tyson Burris, No. 12-2205 (8th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Sentence imposed upon revocation of defendant's supervised release was reasonable. [ September 07, 2012
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 12-2205 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Tyson Burris lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of South Dakota - Rapid City ____________ Submitted: August 30, 2012 Filed: September 10, 2012 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. After Tyson Burris admitted violations of his release conditions, the district court revoked his supervised release and imposed a sentence of 12 months in prison 1 1 The Honorable Jeffrey L. Viken, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota. and 1 year of supervised release. Burris appeals, arguing that the court did not adequately consider his circumstances and that the sentence is unreasonable. We disagree. The record shows that the district court properly considered the relevant sentencing factors before imposing a revocation sentence that was authorized by statute and within the applicable Guidelines range. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(b), (e)(3), (h); United States v. Petreikis, 551 F.3d 822, 824 (8th Cir. 2009) (applying presumption of substantive reasonableness to revocation sentence within Guidelines range); United States v. White Face, 383 F.3d 733, 740 (8th Cir. 2004) (court need not list every 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factor when sentencing defendant upon revocation of supervised release). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We also grant counsel s motion to withdraw, subject to counsel informing Burris about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition for certiorari. ______________________________ -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.
