United States v. Yliyah Yisrayl, No. 17-2384 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Murphy and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Sentence imposed upon the revocation of defendant's supervised release was properly calculated and was not substantively unreasonable. [ October 24, 2017
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-2384 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Yliyah Rephayah Ben Yisrayl, also known as Carl Watkins lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________ Submitted: October 12, 2017 Filed: October 25, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Yliyah Rephayah Ben Yisrayl appeals the district court’s1 order revoking his supervised release and imposing a 10-month sentence. His counsel has moved for 1 The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. leave to withdraw. Ben Yisrayl has filed 3 pro se briefs challenging his criminal history category, and the administration of his initial sentence; and a motion seeking appointment of new counsel. After careful review of the record, we conclude that the revocation Guidelines range was properly calculated using the criminal history category applicable at the time of initial sentencing, see U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a); United States v. Hendershot, 469 F.3d 703, 705 (8th Cir. 2006); that the administration of Ben Yisrayl’s original sentence is not properly on appeal, see United States v. Tindall, 455 F.3d 885, 888 (8th Cir. 2006); and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Ben Yisrayl, see United States v. Johnson, 827 F.3d 740, 744 (8th Cir. 2016); see also Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2468 (2007) (standard of review); United States v. Gray, 533 F.3d 942, 943-44 (8th Cir. 2008); United States v. Todd, 521 F.3d 891, 897 (8th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, deny the motion for new counsel, and affirm. ______________________________ -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.
