United States v. James Poe, III, No. 10-1093 (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. 10-1093 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. James Charles Poe, III, Appellant. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: April 13, 2010 Filed: April 22, 2010 ___________ Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. James Poe appeals the 12-month prison term the district court1 imposed upon revoking his supervised release. We conclude that the revocation sentence, which is within both the statutory limit and 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 1 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. revocation sentence for Class C and D felonies); United States v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107, 1110-11 (8th Cir. 2008) (district court need not make specific findings where record shows court was aware of relevant factors; on appeal, revocation sentence within Guidelines range is accorded presumption of reasonableness). Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel s motion to withdraw. ______________________________ -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.
