United States v. Kenneth Simpson, No. 16-1031 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Smith, Arnold and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing.The district court did not err in determining defendant had violated his supervised release and the sentence the court imposed was not an abuse of its discretion. [ May 27, 2016
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-1031 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Kenneth Robert Simpson lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________ Submitted: May 25, 2016 Filed: May 31, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SMITH, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. At a supervised release revocation hearing, Kenneth Simpson admitted that immediately upon commencement of his lifetime term of supervision, he had refused to follow his probation officer’s instruction to register as a sex offender. He directly appeals after the district court1 revoked supervision, sentenced him to 12 months in prison, and reimposed a lifetime term of supervision. Upon careful review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that Simpson’s arguments for reversal lack merit. First, we reject his argument that the district court abused its discretion by failing to recuse itself. See United States v. Martin, 757 F.3d 776, 778 (8th Cir. 2014) (standard of review). Second, Simpson’s challenges regarding jurisdiction and double jeopardy amount to improperly raised collateral attacks on his underlying conviction and sentence. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 913 (8th Cir. 2009). Third, the record supports the district court’s finding that Simpson violated his supervised release. See United States v. Black Bear, 542 F.3d 249, 252 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard of review). Fourth, the court did not err in reimposing a lifetime term of supervision, see 18 U.S.C.§§ 3583(h), (k); United States v. Asalati, 615 F.3d 1001, 1006 (8th Cir. 2010) (reasonableness of revocation sentence reviewed for abuse of discretion), and we reject his challenge to the reimposition of special release conditions, see United States v. Koch, 625 F.3d 470, 481 (8th Cir. 2010). Finally, Simpson’s newly raised constitutional challenge to the Sex Offender Registration Act is not properly before us. See Liberty State Bank v. Minnesota Life & Health Ins. Guar. Ass’n, 149 F.3d 832, 834 (8th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, we affirm. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Rodney W. Sippel, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. -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.
