United States v. Kenneth Simpson, No. 16-4498 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Bowman and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Defendant's jurisdictional and double-jeopardy arguments amount to collateral attacks on his original conviction and sentence which cannot be brought in this appeal from the revocation of his supervised release.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-4498 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Kenneth Robert Simpson lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________ Submitted: November 6, 2017 Filed: December 4, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Kenneth Robert Simpson, proceeding pro se, appeals after the District Court1 revoked his supervised release for the second time, sentenced him to 18 months in prison, and reimposed a life term of supervised release. After reviewing the record, we conclude that Simpson’s jurisdictional and double-jeopardy arguments amount to collateral attacks on his conviction and sentence, see United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 913 (8th Cir. 2009) (“A defendant may challenge the validity of his underlying conviction and sentence through a direct appeal or a habeas corpus proceeding, not through a collateral attack in a supervised-release revocation proceeding.”), and that his remaining arguments lack merit. Simpson also moves to strike a brief filed by his former counsel. Because Simpson is proceeding pro se, we have not considered the arguments raised in the counseled brief, and we deny as moot the motion to strike. We affirm the judgment. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Rodney W. Sippel, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. -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.
