United States v. Reginald Nall, No. 11-2592 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - criminal law and sentencing. District court did not err in finding defendant violated his supervised release and the sentence imposed was not substantively unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 11-2592 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Reginald Nalls, Appellant. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Western * District of Arkansas. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: October 25, 2011 Filed: October 27, 2011 ___________ Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. In this direct criminal appeal, Reginald Nalls challenges the district court s1 revocation of his supervised release and the court s imposition of a one-year prison term as his revocation sentence. Upon careful review, we first conclude that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Nalls had violated his supervised-release conditions, and the court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Nalls s supervised release. See United States v. Carothers, 337 F.3d 1017, 1019 (8th 1 The Honorable Harry F. Barnes, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. Cir. 2003) (revocation based on finding of violation is reviewed for abuse of discretion; district court s finding of violation is reviewed for clear error). We further conclude that the district court did not impose an unreasonable revocation sentence by sentencing him to a prison term within the statutory maximum. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (maximum term of imprisonment upon revocation of supervised release is 1 year for Class E felony); United States v. Tyson, 413 F.3d 824, 825 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (revocation sentences reviewed for unreasonableness in accordance with United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005)); see also United States v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107, 1110 (8th Cir. 2008) (district court need not make specific findings on 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors; all that is generally required to satisfy appellate court is evidence that court was aware of relevant factors). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We also 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.
