United States v. Clarence Burnett, No. 18-3112 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Gruender, Stras and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. The district court did not err in revoking defendant's supervised release based on its finding that he had lied to his probation officer; the district court's credibility determinations are virtually unreviewable and there was no reason to second guess the court's decision to credit the probation officer's testimony.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-3112 ___________________________ United States of America Plaintiff - Appellee v. Clarence Duane Burnett Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: June 13, 2019 Filed: September 4, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. The district court 1 revoked Clarence Burnett’s supervised release after finding that he lied to his probation officer. We affirm. 1 The Honorable Howard F. Sachs, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. As a condition of supervised release, Burnett had to seek permission from his probation officer before working, in large part because his prior conviction for obstructing justice involved hiding assets. Rather than comply with this requirement, however, Burnett decided to assist his mother with a major real-estate deal involving two buildings and then enter into a written agreement to renovate them. When his probation officer learned of these activities, he confronted Burnett, who “denied being actively involved.” The district court found that this statement was a lie. In doing so, it credited the probation officer’s description of his conversations with Burnett. On this record, we have no reason to second-guess this “virtually unreviewable” credibility determination. United States v. Carothers, 337 F.3d 1017, 1019 (8th Cir. 2003). Nor is there any merit to the suggestion that Burnett answered truthfully when he denied being “actively involved” with his mother’s business. After all, he helped negotiate a transaction worth more than one million dollars and then agreed to renovate two buildings—actions that can hardly be described as trivial. Once the court determined that Burnett failed to “answer truthfully all inquiries by [his] probation officer,” it was entitled to revoke supervised release and return him to prison. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court. ______________________________ -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.
