United States v. Keith Carter, No. 07-1769 (8th Cir. 2007)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Revocation sentence was not unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 07-1769 ___________ United States, Appellee, v. Keith Brian Carter, Appellant. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: September 5, 2007 Filed: September 11, 2007 ___________ Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Keith Brian Carter appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after revoking his supervised release. He also moves to supplement the record on appeal. We grant his motion and affirm the sentence. In 1993 Carter was sentenced to 120 months in prison; his 8-year term of supervised release commenced in May 1999. At a March 2007 revocation hearing, Carter admitted violating conditions of his release. Subject to an advisory Guidelines 1 The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Nebraska. range of 6-12 months in prison, Carter requested a sentence within that range with no further supervision. The court imposed a sentence of 12 months and 1 day in prison, followed by 5 years of supervised release. We hold that the revocation sentence is not unreasonable. See United States v. Tyson, 413 F.3d 824, 825 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (standard of review). The district court properly considered relevant factors, including Carter s history and characteristics, the need for deterrence, and the advisory Guidelines range and other sentencing options. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(c); United States v. Nelson, 453 F.3d 1004, 1006 (8th Cir. 2006) (in fashioning revocation sentence, district court is to consider advisory sentencing range and policy statements found in Chapter 7 of Guidelines, as well as certain additional § 3553(a) factors); United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 923 (8th Cir. 2006) (district court need not list every § 3553(a) consideration when sentencing defendant upon revocation of supervised release). 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.
