United States v. Antonio Straight, No. 14-1885 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. The sentence imposed upon the revocation of defendant's supervised release was not unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 14-1885 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Antonio Straight lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids ____________ Submitted: November 3, 2014 Filed: November 3, 2014 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Antonio Straight directly appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised release and sentenced him above his Chapter 7 advisory Guidelines range to the 1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. statutory maximum of 24 months in prison. Straight’s counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief, arguing that Straight’s sentence is unreasonable. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose an unreasonable sentence, particularly in light of Straight’s repeated violations of his supervised-release conditions and the court’s extensive statement of reasons to support its sentencing decision. See United States v. Thunder, 553 F.3d 605, 608-09 (8th Cir. 2009) (revocation sentence above advisory range was not substantively unreasonable where defendant repeatedly violated supervised release); United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 924 (8th Cir. 2006) (affirming statutory maximum revocation sentence where district court justified decision by giving supporting reasons); see also United States v. Growden, 663 F.3d 982, 984 (8th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (revocation sentence is reviewed for substantive reasonableness under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and 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.
