United States v. Adam Rouillard, No. 16-2476 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Smith, Arnold and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. District court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant after it revoked his supervised release.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-2474 ___________________________ United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Adam Rouillard, lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant. ___________________________ No. 16-2476 ___________________________ United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Adam Rouillard, lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant. ____________ Appeals from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Sioux City ____________ Submitted: February 3, 2017 Filed: February 8, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SMITH, ARNOLD, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. In these consolidated appeals, Adam Rouillard challenges the sentence the district court1 imposed upon revoking his second term of supervised release. In each case, his counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief questioning the reasonableness of Rouillard’s revocation sentence. Rouillard has not filed a supplemental brief. After careful review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Rouillard. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 915-18 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review); see also United States v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107, 1110-11 (8th Cir. 2008) (this court reviews entire sentencing record, not merely district court’s statements at hearing). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motions for leave to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of the district court. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. -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.
