United States v. Eldon Philip Anderson, No. 17-1714 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Murphy and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Evidence was sufficient to establish defendant violated the provisions of his supervised release. [ November 03, 2017
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-1714 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Eldon Philip Anderson lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ___________________________ No. 17-3183 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Eldon Philip Anderson lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeals from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul ______________ Submitted: October 23, 2017 Filed: November 6, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. In these consolidated appeals, Eldon Anderson, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s1 order revoking his supervised release, and also appeals the district court’s2 denial of his motion for release pending appeal. Anderson argues on appeal, inter alia, that the government failed to prove he violated the terms of his supervised release. After carefully reviewing the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we reject Anderson’s challenge to the district court’s determination that he violated the terms of his supervised release. See United States v. Black Bear, 542 F.3d 249, 252 (8th Cir. 2008) (finding as to whether violation occurred is reviewed for clear error). We conclude that Anderson’s additional arguments are also unavailing, and therefore affirm the judgment revoking his supervised release. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We further dismiss as moot Anderson’s appeal from the denial of his motion for release pending appeal, and deny as moot his motion for an expedited appeal. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. 2 The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. -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.
