United States v. Joseph Oliver, No. 19-1817 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Shepherd and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. The sentence imposed upon the revocation of defendant's supervised release was not an abuse of the district court's discretion. [ October 28, 2019
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-1817 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Joseph Eugene Oliver lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield ____________ Submitted: October 23, 2019 Filed: October 29, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, SHEPHERD, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Joseph Oliver appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised release, and sentenced him to 12 months and 1 day in prison and 2 years of supervised release. 1 The Honorable M. Douglas Harpool, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief challenging the sentence. Oliver has not filed a pro se brief. After careful review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Oliver, as it properly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors; there was no indication that it overlooked a relevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors, see United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 915-18 (8th Cir. 2009) (substantive reasonableness of revocation sentence is reviewed under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard); see also United States v. White Face, 383 F.3d 733, 740 (8th Cir. 2004) (district court need not mechanically list every § 3553(a) factor when sentencing defendant upon revocation; all that is required is consideration of relevant matters and some reason for court’s decision); and the sentence was within the advisory Guidelines range, and below the statutory limit, see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirm. ______________________________ -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.
