United States v. Christopher Fisher, No. 16-1087 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Murphy, Bowman and Benton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Sentence imposed upon the revocation of defendant's supervised release was substantively reasonable. [ June 27, 2016
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-1087 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Christopher Michael Fisher lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines ____________ Submitted: June 23, 2016 Filed: June 28, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before MURPHY, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Christopher Michael Fisher appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 following a revocation hearing. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms. 1 The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. At the hearing, Fisher admitted that he had violated the conditions of his supervised release. The district court revoked supervised release and sentenced him to 12 months and one day in prison—a term within the recommended Guidelines revocation range—and 48 months of supervised release. Fisher asserts that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. This court finds no abuse of discretion. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 917 (8th Cir. 2009) (discussing abuse-of-discretion review for substantive reasonableness of revocation sentence); United States v. Petreikis, 551 F.3d 822, 824 (8th Cir. 2009) (applying presumption of reasonableness to revocation sentence within Guidelines range). The judgment is affirmed. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. ______________________________ -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.
