United States v. Montes King, No. 14-2705 (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 substantively unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 14-2705 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Montes D. King lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: December 15, 2014 Filed: December 22, 2014 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Montes King directly appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised release and sentenced him within the Chapter 7 advisory Guidelines range to 18 1 The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. months in prison. King’s counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief arguing that King’s sentence is substantively unreasonable. King has filed a pro se brief arguing that his due process rights were violated. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose an unreasonable revocation sentence. See United States v. Growden, 663 F.3d 982, 984 (8th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (describing appellate review of revocation sentences); United States v. Petreikis, 551 F.3d 822, 824 (8th Cir. 2009) (applying presumption of substantive reasonableness to revocation sentence within Guidelines range). We also conclude that no due process violation occurred in light of counsel’s and King’s statements at the revocation hearing. Cf. United States v. Taylor, 747 F.3d 516, 51920 (8th Cir. 2014) (affirming revocation where defendant did not voice objections despite being afforded opportunity to speak after his attorney had conceded violations). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We also grant counsel’s motion for leave 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.
