United States v. Ronrico Crutchfield, No. 09-1216 (8th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Sentence imposed upon revocation of defendant's supervised release was not unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _______________ No. 09-1215/1216 _______________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Ronrico Antonio Crutchfield, Appellant. * * * * Appeals from the United States * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: July 7, 2009 Filed: July 10, 2009 ___________ Before BYE, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Ronrico Crutchfield appeals the sentence of 8 months in prison that the district court imposed after revoking his supervised release. For reversal, he argues that the court erred by failing to properly consider the relevant sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We affirm. 1 At the sentencing hearing, the district court entertained arguments from both sides as to where to sentence Crutchfield: the defense directed the court s attention 1 The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. to Crutchfield s efforts to obtain employment and the circumstances underlying some of his supervised-release violations, while the government pointed to Crutchfield s lengthy history of violating supervised release. Prior to imposing sentence, the district court commended Crutchfield for finding employment, but expressed concern over his poor history on supervised release. We find that the district court sufficiently considered the section 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Hernandez, 518 F.3d 613, 616 (8th Cir. 2008) (court need not mechanically list each § 3553(a) factor so long as it is clear that court considered factors); United States v. Nelson, 453 F.3d 1004, 1006 (8th Cir. 2006) (appellate court reviews revocation sentence to determine whether it is unreasonable in relation to, inter alia, advisory Guidelines range and § 3553(a) factors).2 Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. We also grant counsel s motion to withdraw. ______________________________ 2 Further, the sentence, near the bottom of the applicable advisory revocation range, was not unreasonable. See United States v. Jones, 563 F.3d 725, 729 (8th Cir. 2009) (where district court commits no significant procedural error and sentence is within advisory Guidelines, sentence is presumed to be reasonable). -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.
