United States v. Leighton Munger, No. 19-3546 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Kelly;, Erickson and Stras, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Sentence imposed upon the revocation of defendant's supervised release was substantively reasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-3546 ___________________________ United States of America Plaintiff - Appellee v. Leighton Lyle Leroy Munger Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ____________ Submitted: June 15, 2020 Filed: August 3, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before KELLY, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. After Leighton Lyle Leroy Munger admitted to violating the conditions of supervised release by failing a drug test and leaving a halfway house without permission, the district court 1 gave him a within-Guidelines-range sentence of 14 1 The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. months in prison. He challenges the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, including the weight placed on various mitigating factors. We conclude that Munger’s sentence is substantively reasonable. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 917 (8th Cir. 2009) (reviewing the reasonableness of a revocation sentence for an abuse of discretion); United States v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107, 1110 (8th Cir. 2008) (stating that a within-Guidelines-range sentence is presumptively reasonable). The record establishes that the district court sufficiently considered the statutory sentencing factors, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(e)(3), and did not rely on an improper factor or commit a clear error of judgment. See United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 923–24 (8th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we 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.
