United States v. Charles Ellis, No. 13-1100 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Order modifying the terms of defendant's supervision affirmed. [ July 03, 2013
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 13-1100 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Charles Leopole Ellis lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: July 1, 2013 Filed: July 5, 2013 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Charles Ellis directly appeals the district court s1 modification of the conditions of his supervised release. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief 1 The Honorable Howard F. Sachs, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning the district court s authority to modify Ellis s conditions of supervised release without a finding that Ellis had committed a violation. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court acted within its authority. See 18 U.S.C. ยง 3583(d) (court may order condition to extent that such condition, inter alia, is reasonably related to history and characteristics of defendant, and involves no greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct, to protect public from further crimes of defendant, and to provide defendant with needed medical care or other correctional treatment in most effective manner); cf. United States v. Davies, 380 F.3d 329, 332 (8th Cir. 2004) (district court may modify conditions imposed on supervised-release term even when modification is based only on evidence that was available at original sentencing; statute that authorizes district courts to modify conditions of supervised release does not require new evidence, nor even changed circumstances in defendant s life). Furthermore, having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues. 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.
