United States v. Cassandra Dismang, No. 13-3574 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. District court did not err in finding defendant had violated the conditions of her supervised release, and the sentence it imposed was not substantively unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 13-3574 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Cassandra Lynn Dismang lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield ____________ Submitted: May 1, 2014 Filed: May 6, 2014 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Cassandra Lynn Dismang directly appeals the district court s1 judgment revoking her supervised release and sentencing her to 15 months in prison. After 1 The Honorable Brian C. Wimes, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. careful review, this court concludes that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Dismang had violated the conditions of her supervised release, and did not abuse its discretion by revoking her supervised release. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 914 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review). This court also concludes that the district court committed no procedural sentencing error, and the 15-month sentence, which was below the Guidelines range and was the sentence Dismang requested, was not substantively unreasonable. See id. at 915-17 (discussing procedural-error and substantive-reasonableness tests); see also United States v. McCully, 407 F.3d 931, 934 (8th Cir. 2005) (where defendant received sentence at bottom of Guidelines range as requested, she cannot challenge reasonableness of sentence on appeal). 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.
