United States v. Brent Jones, No. 13-1554 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Sentence imposed upon the revocation of defendant's supervised release was not unreasonable. [ September 03, 2013
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 13-1554 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Brent E. Jones, also known as B. J. LNU lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: July 5, 2013 Filed: September 4, 2013 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BYE, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. After Brent Jones admitted violating his release conditions, the district court1 revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to 12 months in prison with no 1 The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. supervision to follow. Mr. Jones appeals, arguing that his sentence is unreasonable; that the probation office s violation report omitted important facts underlying his violations; that the government may have requested a 12-month prison sentence because it was mistaken as to when his supervised release was scheduled to end; and that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) did not honor the district court s recommendation for his place of incarceration. We conclude that Mr. Jones s sentence was not unreasonable. 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). We reject the remaining arguments as meritless, noting in particular that the BOP was not bound by the district court s placement recommendation, see United States v. Kerr, 472 F.3d 517, 520 (8th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We also grant counsel leave to withdraw, subject to counsel informing Mr. Jones 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.
