United States v. Iyarpeya, No. 14-1215 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed the district court's above-Guidelines sentence after he admitted to violating his supervised release. The court rejected defendant's contention that the district court should have followed Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 before accepting his admissions and imposing the sentence because Rule 11 does not apply to revocation hearings and it was not plain error for the district court to not follow those procedures; defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court acted within its discretion in ordering 24 months' imprisonment; the district court noted that defendant had absconded and was not a good candidate for further supervised release; and the district court highlighted the seriousness of the original offense, the leniency of the original sentence, and the failure to pay restitution. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Criminal Case - revocation of supervised release sentence. District court did not plainly err in failing to advise defendant that he could withdraw his admission if the plea agreement was rejected and that the court could impose a harsher sentence. Rule 11 does not apply to revocation hearings. The district court did not abuse its discretion in varying upward to an above-Guidelines sentence of 24 months, as the court noted defendant absconded and was not a good candidate for further supervised release, and highlighted the seriousness of the original offense, the leniency of the orignal sentence and the failure to pay restitution.
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.