United States v. Robert Bolden, No. 09-2842 (8th Cir. 2010)
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. 09-2842 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Robert Orlando Bolden, Appellant. * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Northern District of Iowa. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * * ___________ Submitted: April 14, 2010 Filed: April 19, 2010 ___________ Before LOKEN, BYE, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Robert Bolden challenges the reasonableness of the sentence the district court1 imposed after revoking his supervised release. Upon careful review, we hold that the district court did not clearly err in finding by a preponderance of the evidence that Bolden had violated the conditions of his supervised release, see United States v. Carothers, 337 F.3d 1017, 1019 (8th Cir. 2003) (government must prove by 1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. preponderance of evidence that defendant violated supervised release condition; district court s finding that violation occurred is reviewed for clear error; district court s credibility determinations at supervised release revocation hearing are virtually unreviewable on appeal), and we conclude that the revocation sentence is not unreasonable, see 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)). Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. We grant counsel s motion to withdraw, subject to counsel informing Bolden about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition for certiorari. ______________________________ -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.
