United States v. Carl Shinn, No. 17-1365 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Gruender, Bowman and Benton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Revocation of defendant's supervised release was proper on this record, and the sentence imposed was not substantively unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-1365 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Carl Deon Shinn lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines ____________ Submitted: November 6, 2017 Filed: November 9, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Carl Shinn directly appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed upon revoking his supervised release. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and 1 The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. has filed a brief challenging the substantive reasonableness of Shinn’s aboveguidelines prison term. Shinn has filed a pro se brief challenging the revocation decision and his revocation sentence, and arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Upon careful review, we conclude that the revocation of Shinn’s supervised release was proper. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (stating that the 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, 913-14 (8th Cir. 2009) (reviewing for clear error factual findings related to a supervised-release revocation). We further conclude that the revocation sentence is not substantively unreasonable, as it is within the statutory limits, and the court appropriately considered relevant factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (identifying the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors that the court must consider before revoking a term of supervised release and imposing a sentence); United States v. Growden, 663 F.3d 982, 984 (8th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (reviewing the substantive reasonableness of a revocation sentence for an abuse of discretion). As for Shinn’s ineffectiveassistance arguments, we decline to consider them on direct appeal. See United States v. Hughes, 330 F.3d 1068, 1069 (8th Cir. 2003) (noting that ineffective-assistance claims are more properly reviewed in collateral proceedings). Counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed. ______________________________ -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.
