United States v. Joseph Veselko, No. 12-2209 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Criminal law. In a proceeding to revoke defendant's supervised release, the district court did not err in finding defendant had intentionally tampered with electronic monitoring bracelet.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 12-2209 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Joseph A. Veselko lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport ____________ Submitted: January 17, 2013 Filed: January 23, 2013 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. While Joseph Veselko was serving a period of supervised release following release from imprisonment on a federal drug conviction, the district court1 found that 1 The Honorable John A. Jarvey, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. Veselko had violated his supervised release by tampering with an electronic monitoring bracelet that he was required to wear during a period of home detention. The court revoked supervised release, and imposed a revocation sentence consisting of imprisonment and additional supervised release. Veselko appeals, arguing the court erred in finding that he violated his supervised release. Upon careful review of the evidence presented by the government at the revocation hearing, we conclude the district court did not clearly err in finding that Veselko intentionally tampered with his electronic monitoring bracelet. See United States v. Sistrunk, 612 F.3d 988, 991 (8th Cir. 2010) (standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We also grant counsel s motion for leave 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.
