United States v. Michelle Green, No. 08-2845 (8th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal Case - revocation of supervised release. District court did not err in imposing sentence because court carefully and expressly considered multiple relevant factors and sentence was within statutory limits. Sentence was not unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 08-2845 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Michelle A. Green, Appellant. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: October 1, 2009 Filed: October 8, 2009 ___________ Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Michelle Green appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed upon revoking her supervised release, arguing that the court did not properly consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, and abused its discretion, in imposing the sentence. Upon careful review we conclude that, to the contrary, the court carefully and expressly considered multiple relevant section 3553(a) factors, including Green s repeated prior violations of supervised release, the high risk that she would commit new felonious conduct, the prior sentencing leniency that she had received, and the 1 The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. need for the type of strict supervision that could be provided in prison. Cf. United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 923 (8th Cir. 2006) (court is not required to list every § 3553(a) factor when sentencing defendant; record must show that court considered relevant matters and stated reason for its decision). Further, the revocation sentence is within the statutory limits of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). Accordingly, we cannot say that the sentence is unreasonable. See id. at 922, 924 (no error in imposing 60-month sentence that exceeded Guidelines recommended range of 5-11 months, where sentence was within statutory maximum, court expressed grave concern over defendant s numerous and repeated violations of supervised release and inability to complete drug treatment programs, and defendant persisted in criminal conduct despite many chances afforded by probation office); United States v. Tyson, 413 F.3d 824, 825 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (standard of review). 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.
