United States v. Orlando Straw, No. 13-1102 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Sentence imposed upon the revocation of defendant's supervised release was not substantively unreasonable. [ April 19, 2013
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 13-1102 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Orlando Straw lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids ____________ Submitted: April 17, 2013 Filed: April 22, 2013 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BYE, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. After Orlando Straw admitted violating his release conditions, the district court revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to 9 months in prison with 1 1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. no supervision to follow. Straw appeals, arguing that his sentence is unreasonable and that the court improperly weighed the sentencing factors. 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. §§ 3553(a), 3583(e)(3); 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 § 3553(a) factor when sentencing defendant upon revocation of supervised release). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We also grant counsel leave to withdraw, subject to counsel informing Shaw 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.
