United States v. Ronnell Prewitt, No. 14-3818 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Smith and Benton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. District court had jurisdiction to revoke defendant's supervised release; evidence was sufficient to support the court's determination that defendant had violated his supervision; sentence imposed was not unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 14-3818 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Ronnell R. Prewitt lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: August 21, 2015 Filed: August 26, 2015 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. The district court1 revoked Ronnell R. Prewitt’s supervised release. On appeal, Prewitt raises several challenges to the revocation judgment and sentence, and to the 1 The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. underlying conviction and sentence. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court grants counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirms. This court rejects as meritless Prewitt’s argument that the district court lacked jurisdiction to revoke supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). The district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking supervised release based on the testimony of witnesses at the revocation hearing, as well as the other evidence that was before the court. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g)(1) (revocation of supervised release is mandatory if defendant unlawfully possesses controlled substance); United States v. Walker, 688 F.3d 416, 422 (8th Cir. 2012) (witness credibility is virtually unreviewable on appeal); United States v. Ralph, 480 F.3d 888, 890 (8th Cir. 2007) (decision to revoke supervised release is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and factfinding as to whether violation occurred is reviewed for clear error). The statutory maximum revocation sentence is not unreasonable in these circumstances, as the district court properly considered relevant sentencing factors and sufficiently explained its decision. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 915-16 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review). Finally, this court will not consider Prewitt’s untimely challenges to his underlying conviction and sentence. The judgment is affirmed. ______________________________ -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.
