United States v. Stephen White, No. 13-1809 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Sentence imposed upon revocation of defendant's supervised release was not substantively unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 13-1809 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Stephen Eugene White lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________ Submitted: August 1, 2013 Filed: August 8, 2013 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Stephen White directly appeals the eleven-month prison term that the district court imposed upon revoking his supervised release. His counsel has moved to 1 1 The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. withdraw, and has filed a brief indicating that there is no issue of arguable merit in this case. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court imposed a statutorily authorized revocation sentence, given that White s underlying offense was a Class C felony. See 18 U.S.C. ยง 3583(e)(3) (court may impose revocation sentence of no more than 2 years in prison if underlying offense was Class C felony). We further conclude that the district court s sentencing decision reflects no abuse of discretion. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 915-16 (8th Cir. 2009) (court reviews revocation sentencing decisions using same standards as applied to initial sentencing decisions); United States v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107, 1110 (8th Cir. 2008) (appellate court reviews revocation sentence for abuse of discretion, ensuring sentence is reasonable); see also United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (describing ways in which district court might be found to have committed abuse of discretion). The judgment is affirmed. In addition, 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.
