United States v. Michael Petreikis, No. 13-3317 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Sentence imposed upon the revocation of defendant's supervised release was not unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 13-3317 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Michael R. Petreikis lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul ____________ Submitted: May 23, 2014 Filed: May 30, 2014 [Unpublished] ____________ Before RILEY, Chief Judge, MELLOY and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Michael R. Petreikis appeals the twelve-month prison sentence the district court imposed upon revoking his supervised release for the second time. See United States v. Petreikis, 551 F.3d 822, 825 (8th Cir. 2009) (affirming Petreikis s first 1 1 The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. revocation sentence). Petreikis argues his sentence was greater than necessary to accomplish the goals of sentencing, and was therefore unreasonable. In Petreikis s view, the district court failed to give adequate weight to important factors, including Petreikis s advanced age, failing health, efforts to improve the circumstances of his supervised release before absconding, and the lack of evidence that he committed any new offenses [d]uring his absence from supervision. Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude the district court properly considered the relevant sentencing factors, see 18 U.S.C. ยงยง 3553(a), 3583(e)(3), and did not impose an unreasonable revocation sentence. See United States v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107, 1110-11 (8th Cir. 2008); United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 923-24 (8th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B(1), (4). ______________________________ -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.
