United States v. Carvell England, No. 16-4553 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Bowman and Benton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. The sentence imposed upon the revocation of defendant's supervised release, while greater than his recommended guidelines range, was well within statutory limits and was not substantively unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-4553 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Carvell Seman England lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Sioux City ____________ Submitted: August 10, 2017 Filed: August 11, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. While Carvell Seman England was serving a third term of federal supervised release, the district court1 revoked supervised release and sentenced him to 18 months 1 The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. in prison and no additional supervised release. On appeal, England challenges the revocation sentence as substantively unreasonable. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms. Although the sentence is above the advisory range contained in the Guidelines Chapter 7 policy statements, it is well within statutory limits. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (maximum revocation prison term is five years if underlying offense is Class A felony; three years if underlying offense is Class B felony). The district court thoroughly explained its reasons for varying upward, including England’s history of repeated violations, his failure to appear at the original revocation hearing, and the need to adequately deter him from further criminal conduct despite imposing no further term of supervised release. See id. (before revoking supervised release and imposing sentence, court must consider specified factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including history and characteristics of defendant, and need to deter criminal conduct); United States v. Growden, 663 F.3d 982, 984 (8th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (court acted well within broad discretion in imposing above-Guidelines revocation sentence where it considered appropriate § 3553(a) factors, sufficiently explained reasoning for variance, and imposed sentence within statutory limits). The judgment is affirmed, and 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.
