United States v. Jenny Tyler, No. 15-1275 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Loken and Benton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. The district court did not impose an unreasonable sentence when it revoked defendant's supervision and added a special release condition requiring her to reside in a residential reentry center for 180 days after her release from prison; the district court made an individualized inquiry in to the facts of the case, and the special release condition was reasonably related to the 3553(a) factors. [ June 17, 2015
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-1275 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Jenny Racheal Tyler lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, Waterloo ____________ Submitted: June 15, 2015 Filed: June 18, 2015 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. After revoking Jenny Tyler’s supervised release for release-condition violations that she admitted, the district court1 sentenced her to 8 months in prison and 1 year 1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. of additional supervised release, and added a special release condition requiring that she reside in a residential reentry center for 180 days after her release from prison. On appeal, Tyler challenges as unreasonable the condition on placement in a residential reentry center. After careful review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion: the court made an individualized inquiry into the facts and circumstances underlying the case, and the special release condition was reasonably related to the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 sentencing factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d); United States v. Wiedower, 634 F.3d 490, 493 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard of review). The judgment is affirmed, and we grant counsel 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.
