United States v. Dale Grau, No. 12-3560 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Criminal law. District court did not err in finding defendant had violated his supervised release, and the sentence it imposed was not substantively unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 12-3560 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Dale Alan Grau lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines ____________ Submitted: February 5, 2013 Filed: February 28, 2013 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. The district court1 found that Dale Grau had violated his supervised release following his release from imprisonment on a federal identity-theft conviction. The 1 The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. court thus revoked supervised release and imposed a revocation sentence consisting of imprisonment and additional supervised release. Grau appeals, arguing that the district court erred in finding that he violated his supervised release and that it imposed an unreasonable revocation sentence. Upon careful review of the evidence presented by the government at the revocation hearing, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in finding that the government met its burden of proving that Grau had violated his supervised release, see United States v. Sistrunk, 612 F.3d 988, 991 (8th Cir. 2010) (standard of review). We also conclude that the revocation sentence was not substantively unreasonable, see United States v. Growden, 663 F.3d 982, 984 (8th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (standard of review). The judgment is affirmed. Counsel s motion to withdraw is granted. ______________________________ -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.
