United States v. Larry Big Boy, No. 14-1295 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal Case - revocation of supervised release. Reasonableness of revocation prison sentence is now moot. The court did not err, plainly or otherwise, in not examining sua sponte whether the original conditions were warranted.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 14-1295 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Larry Big Boy lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of South Dakota - Rapid City ____________ Submitted: June 24, 2014 Filed: November 20, 2014 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. While Larry Big Boy was serving a period of supervised release following release from imprisonment on a conviction for attempting to sexually engage in contact with a minor, the district court1 found he had violated a condition of his supervised release and imposed a revocation sentence consisting of 6 months in prison and 2 years of supervised release. On appeal, Big Boy’s counsel moves to withdraw, and raises two arguments: (1) the revocation prison sentence is unreasonable and (2) the court abused its discretion by continuing all of the conditions of supervised release from Big Boy’s original term, without assessing whether each condition was still necessary. Since briefing in this case was completed, counsel for Big Boy advised the Court that Big Boy has completed his six-month revocation prison sentence and that the issue of the reasonableness of the prison sentence is now moot. Accordingly, the appeal as to this issue is dismissed as moot. At the revocation hearing, Big Boy did not voice any concerns about the propriety of the reimposed release conditions, and the court did not err, plainly or otherwise, in not examining sua sponte whether the conditions were still warranted. See United States v. Simons, 614 F.3d 475, 478-81 (8th Cir. 2010); United States v. Lebeau, 490 Fed. Appx. 831, 832 (8th Cir. 2012) (unpublished per curiam) (defendant should not benefit from supervised release violations, where special conditions of supervised release would have remained in effect at time in question if defendant had not violated supervised release). Accordingly, we affirm. As to counsel’s motion to withdraw, we conclude that allowing counsel to withdraw at this time would not be consistent with the Eighth Circuit’s 1994 Amendment to Part V of the Plan to Implement the Criminal Justice Act of 1964. We 1 The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota. -2- therefore deny counsel’s motion to withdraw as premature, without prejudice to counsel refiling the motion upon fulfilling the duties set forth in the Amendment. ______________________________ -3-
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.
