United States v. Anthony Dean, No. 09-3272 (8th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Revocation sentence was not unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 09-3272 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Anthony Nelson Dean, Appellant. * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Northern * District of Iowa. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * * ___________ Submitted: February 16, 2010 Filed: February 23, 2010 ___________ Before BYE, RILEY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. While Anthony Dean Nelson was serving a period of supervised release, the district court1 revoked supervision and sentenced Dean to 11 months in prison and 14 months of additional supervised release. For reversal, Dean argues that the revocation sentence is unreasonable. Because he has not rebutted the presumption that his within-Guidelines-range revocation sentence is reasonable, see United States v. Petreikis, 551 F.3d 822, 824 (8th Cir. 2009), we affirm. 1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. In particular, we note that the sentence is within statutory limits, see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(b)(2), (e)(3), (h); and that the court considered proper factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including the Guidelines range, Dean s poor history on supervised release, his drug and alcohol abuse, the lack of remaining available community programs, and his need for a residential-reentry program and participation in an alcohol-testing program upon release from prison. See 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 applicable § 3553(a) factors). Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. ______________________________ -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.
