United States v. Holdsworth, No. 15-2382 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed his revocation sentence of 51 months in prison. In this case, the district court had the power to sentence defendant, as a probation violator within the range of sentences available at the time of his initial sentencing, although the district court was not required to do so. The court held that the district court did not plainly err by sentencing defendant within the Guidelines range applicable at his original sentencing, which was calculated using a criminal history category of VI. Furthermore, the court concluded that the district court's remarks at sentencing do not suggest that it lengthened defendant's sentence to promote rehabilitation. Therefore, the district court did not commit plain error under Tapia v. United States. Finally, the court concluded that defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court properly considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors in imposing the sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Smith, Author, with Loken and Beam, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Under this circuit's precedents, a district court has the power to sentence a probation violator within the range of sentences available at the time of the initial sentencing; the district court's remarks at sentencing did not suggest that the court improperly lengthened defendant's sentence to promote rehabilitation or to assure his placement in a drug-treatment program; the district court properly considered the 3553(a) factors and did not impose an unreasonable sentence.
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.