United States v. Terry Sanders, No. 17-2808 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Gruender, Bowman and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and Sentencing. Anders case. Sentence imposed upon the revocation of defendant's supervised release was not substantively unreasonable; court adequately explained the basis for its sentence; challenge to underlying conviction and sentence cannot be raised by collateral attack in this proceeding. [ April 10, 2018
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-2808 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Terry L. Sanders lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock ____________ Submitted: April 5, 2018 Filed: April 11, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. In this direct criminal appeal, Terry Sanders challenges the order of the district court revoking his supervised release and imposing a 20-month sentence. His 1 1 The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. counsel has moved to withdraw, and has submitted a brief discussing the substantive reasonableness of the revocation sentence. Sanders has filed pro se briefs, arguing that the district court failed to explain adequately the revocation sentence, and challenging his underlying conviction and sentence. Upon careful review of the record, we conclude that Sanders’s revocation sentence was not substantively unreasonable, as the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and there was no indication the court overlooked a relevant factor or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the relevant factors. See United States v. Johnson, 827 F.3d 740, 744 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard of review). We further conclude that the district court adequately explained its rationale for the revocation sentence. See United States v. Krzyzaniak, 702 F.3d 1082, 1085 (8th Cir. 2013) (district court’s explanation is sufficient if record as whole demonstrates court considered relevant factors). We also reject Sanders’s challenge to his underlying conviction and sentence. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 913 (8th Cir. 2009) (defendant may challenge validity of his underlying conviction and sentence through direct appeal or habeas corpus proceeding, not through collateral attack in supervised-release revocation proceeding). Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw, and we affirm. We also deny Sanders’s appellate motion to correct the presentence report. ______________________________ -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.
