United States v. Jason Durgan, No. 13-1538 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Sentence imposed upon the revocation of defendant's supervised release was not substantively unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 13-1538 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Jason Eugene Durgan lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield ____________ Submitted: August 7, 2013 Filed: August 8, 2013 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Jason Eugene Durgan appeals the 24-month prison term the district court1 imposed upon revoking his supervised release. He argues that the district court 1 The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, late a United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. abused its discretion by imposing a revocation sentence that is substantively unreasonable. Durgan s counsel has moved to withdraw. Upon careful review, this court concludes that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Durgan. The district court imposed a sentence within the permitted statutory range and gave sound reasons to justify its sentencing decision. See 18 U.S.C. ยง 3583(e)(3) (permitting 24-month prison term as part of revocation sentence where original offense was Class C felony); United States v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107, 1110 (8th Cir. 2008) (court reviews revocation sentence for abuse of discretion; district court s discretion to impose prison term upon revocation of supervised release is limited by statute); cf. United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 924 (8th Cir. 2006) (affirming imposition of maximum revocation sentence available under statute, where district court justified decision by giving supporting reasons). This court affirms the judgment of the district court, and grants 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.
