United States v. Glover, No. 16-4114 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseGlover was imprisoned for distributing cocaine base. In 2015, he began serving his five-year term of supervised release. In 2016, he was arrested for unlawfully possessing marijuana packaged for delivery and interfering with official acts. The district court found him in violation of the terms of his supervised release, imposed a revocation sentence of eight months’ imprisonment and four years’ supervised release, with the new special condition that he not have contact with his fiancee, Watkins, who is the mother of his child. An officer had testified that, during a recorded phone call after Glover’s arrest, Glover and Watkins discussed the day of Glover’s arrest in a way that implicated Watkins as having been in a “tailing” car. The judge stated: He’s not going to be able to have contact with her because she was engaged in criminal activity, and indicated that Watkins may have stolen items found in their shared home. The Eighth Circuit vacated the condition. The district court’s explanation was not sufficient to permit meaningful appellate review. It appears Watkins had knowledge of at least some of Glover’s criminal activity, but the nature of her involvement is unclear; the court made no findings regarding her connection to the money or clothes and expressed uncertainty as to whether Watkins was the mother of Glover’s child.
Court Description: Melloy, Author, with Wollman and Loken, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Based on the current record, the court could not say whether a special condition barring contact with defendant's girlfriend was appropriate or greater than necessary, and the matter is remanded to the district court for further proceedings; since the government had not asked for the special condition, it did not have a full and fair opportunity to present evidence on the relationship between defendant and his girlfriend, and on remand the government may ask for additional proceedings to present such evidence.
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.