United States v. Martin, No. 14-1120 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed his sentence for revocation of supervised release. In this instance, the district court's earlier statement about counting on getting 36 months' incarceration for future violations did not display a deep-seated antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible where the district court gave a warning and recognized it was subject to change. The district court took great lengths to recite defendant's history, his performance on supervised release, and his attitude throughout the case. The court concluded that the district court acted reasonably, determining that defendant's behavior justified a 36-month sentence consecutive to his state sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Court Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. District court did not err in denying defendant's motion to recuse in this revocation-of-supervised-release proceeding as the court's prior comments at defendant's initial sentencing expressed a warning and not a deep-seated antagonism towards defendant; sentence imposed upon the revocation of defendant's supervised release was not substantively unreasonable. [ July 02, 2014
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.