United States v. Steven Hines, No. 09-3245 (8th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. District court did not err in determining that defendant had violated the terms of his supervised release; district court considered defendant's prior period of home detention in setting sentence, and the sentence was not unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 09-3245 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Steven L. Hines, Appellant. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: March 5, 2010 Filed: March 31, 2010 ___________ Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Steven Hines appeals the 15-month prison sentence the district court1 imposed after revoking his supervised release. He argues that the court erred in finding he violated a condition of his supervised release, and in imposing the sentence without considering a 6-month period of home detention he previously had served. We conclude that the district court did not clearly err in determining that Hines violated the terms of his supervised release, based on the undisputed fact that he was 1 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. convicted of a felony drug offense in Texas state court; and that the court did not abuse its discretion in revoking his supervised release. See United States v. Black Bear, 542 F.3d 249, 252 (8th Cir. 2008) (reviewing for abuse of discretion district court s decision to revoke supervised release, and for clear error district court s factfinding as to whether or not violation occurred; government must prove by preponderance of evidence that defendant violated condition of his supervised release; under clear-error review, this court may reverse only if it has definite and firm conviction that district court was mistaken); cf. United States v. Feinberg, 631 F.2d 388, 391 (5th Cir. 1980) (per curiam) (rejecting probationer s argument that guilty plea was insufficient ground for revocation because it was made pursuant to plea bargain and probationer maintained his innocence; conviction of another crime-whether or not defendant contests accuracy of charge--is compelling proof of probation violation); United States v. Gentile, 610 F.2d 541, 542 (8th Cir. 1979) (published order holding that criminal conviction provides sufficient grounds for revocation of probation even though appeal from conviction is still pending). As to the sentence, upon careful review, we conclude that the district court considered the prior period of home detention. Further, we conclude that the sentence, which is within the advisory Guidelines range, 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)); see also 18 U.S.C. ยง 3583(e) (factors to be considered before revoking supervised release and imposing sentence; limit on revocation sentence for Class B felony); United States v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107, 1110 (8th Cir. 2008) (district court need not make specific findings where record shows court was aware of relevant factors; revocation sentence within Guidelines range is accorded presumption of reasonableness). 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.
