United States v. Michael Hancock, No. 14-3257 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Court did not err in giving substantial weight to a prior conviction in setting sentence upon the revocation of defendant's supervised release. [ March 20, 2015
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 14-3257 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Michael D. Hancock lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield ____________ Submitted: February 10, 2015 Filed: March 23, 2015 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Michael Hancock was serving the supervised-release portion of his federal criminal sentence when his probation officer filed a violation report with the district court1 alleging that Hancock had violated several supervised-release conditions. Following a hearing, the district court concluded that Hancock had violated his release conditions and revoked supervised release, imposing a revocation sentence of 11 months in prison and two years of supervised release. For reversal, Hancock argues that the court committed plain error in sentencing him because the court gave significant weight to one of his prior convictions. After careful review, we find no abuse of discretion, see United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 915-16 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review), much less plain error, and we affirm the judgment. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted, but we direct counsel to inform appellant about the procedures for filing a petition for rehearing and for certiorari. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. -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.
