United States v. Jeffrey S. Sauerbry, No. 06-1244 (8th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Revocation sentence was not unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 06-1244 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Jeffrey S. Sauerbry, Appellant. * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * * ___________ Submitted: October 27, 2006 Filed: October 31, 2006 ___________ Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Jeffrey Sauerbry appeals the 12-month prison sentence that the district court1 imposed after revoking his supervised release. For reversal, Sauerbry argues the sentence was unreasonable because the court failed to consider the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We conclude that the record reflects the district court considered the appropriate factors, and that the revocation sentence was not unreasonable. See United States v. 1 The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. Nelson, 453 F.3d 1004, 1006 (8th Cir. 2006) (district court must consider advisory sentencing range and policy statements found in Guidelines Chapter 7, and must also consider § 3553(a) factors); United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 923 (8th Cir. 2006) (district court need not mechanically list every § 3553(a) consideration when sentencing defendant upon revocation of supervised release); United States v. Tyson, 413 F.3d 824, 825 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (revocation sentences are reviewed for unreasonableness in accordance with United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005)); United States v. White Face, 383 F.3d 733, 740 (8th Cir. 2004) (all that is required in revocation sentencing is evidence that court has considered relevant matters and that some reason be stated for its decision). Accordingly, we 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.
