United States v. Aaron Nazarian, No. 16-2889 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Smith, Bowman and Benton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. The district court did not err in determining defendant had violated the provisions of his supervised release; the district court did not commit any procedural error in calculating defendant's sentence and his sentence was not substantively unreasonable. [ December 29, 2016
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-2889 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Aaron Nazarian lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield ____________ Submitted: December 22, 2016 Filed: December 30, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. While Aaron Nazarian was serving a third term of federal supervised release, the District Court1 revoked supervised release and sentenced Nazarian to serve 12 1 The Honorable Beth Phillips, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. months and one day in prison with no further supervised release. Nazarian appeals, and we affirm. For reversal, Nazarian challenges the District Court’s finding that he violated his release conditions and the decision to revoke supervised release. This argument fails, given Nazarian’s admissions at the revocation hearing that he violated multiple supervised-release conditions. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (providing that a court may revoke a term of supervised release if it “finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated a condition of supervised release”); United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 914 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review). Nazarian also argues that the District Court committed procedural error in sentencing him and imposed a substantively unreasonable revocation sentence. This argument fails as well. Upon careful review of the record, we detect no procedural error. See Miller, 557 F.3d at 916 (listing sources of procedural error). Further, the revocation sentence is not substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Merrival, 521 F.3d 889, 890 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard of review). Notably, the sentence exceeded the top of the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range by one day in order to provide Nazarian with the benefit of prior-custody credit. Moreover, the court expressly considered and weighed relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors when imposing the sentence. See Miller, 557 F.3d at 917. We affirm the judgment and we grant counsel’s motion 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.
