United States v. Norman Dudley, No. 17-2919 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Smith, Chief Judge, and Murphy and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. The district court did not err in determining defendant's actions constituted shoplifting and that he had violated the terms of his supervised release by committing a new law violation; sentence imposed was not unreasonable. [ May 03, 2018
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-2919 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Norman Dudley lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids ____________ Submitted: February 12, 2018 Filed: May 4, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SMITH, Chief Judge, MURPHY and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. After the district court1 found that Norman Dudley had violated the conditions of his release by walking out of a department store wearing a hat for which he had not 1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. paid, the court revoked Dudley's supervised release and imposed a sentence of ten months' imprisonment followed by one year of supervised release. Dudley appeals, arguing that the district court erred in finding he had violated a condition of his supervised release; he claims that leaving with the hat on was an innocent mistake. He also argues that his sentence was unreasonable. Upon careful review, we hold that the district court did not clearly err in finding by a preponderance of the evidence that Dudley violated his supervised release by committing a new law violation. The surveillance video of Dudley shoplifting was played at the revocation hearing and the record shows that the district court did not find Dudley's excuse plausible. See United States v. Carothers, 337 F.3d 1017, 1019 (8th Cir. 2003) (noting that the government must prove that a defendant violated a condition of supervised release by a preponderance of the evidence; we review a district court's finding that a violation occurred for clear error; a district court's credibility determinations are virtually unreviewable on appeal). We further hold that Dudley's prison sentence is reasonable because it is within the advisory guidelines range and the district court considered the appropriate statutory factors. See United States v. Franklin, 397 F.3d 604, 607 (8th Cir. 2005) (concluding that the district court properly considered the relevant ยง 3553(a) factors because it was aware of the defendant's "numerous and repeated violations of the conditions of his supervised release," the defendant's suggested range under Chapter 7 of the guidelines, the statutory maximum sentence, and the defendant's history and characteristics). The judgment of the district court 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.
