United States v. Hall, No. 17-3663 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseThe Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he violated one of his supervised release conditions. Reviewing for substantive error, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in mentioning the need to protect the public from further crimes and the need to promote respect for the law as additional reasons supporting its sentence. In this case, the district court used an excluded factor only as an insignificant justification and there was no substantive error. The court also held that there was no error in weighing defendant's record on supervised release, and there was no error in the district court's weighing of the sentencing factors where the conclusion that a sentence of further imprisonment would better reflect his record of intransigence than a sentence of further supervised release was reasonable.
Court Description: Grasz, Author, with Gruender and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. In determining defendant's revocation sentence, the court gave insignificant weight to a factor listed in Section 3353(a) but not in Section 3583(a), and this was not an abuse of the court's discretion, because, under an abuse of discretion review for substantive reasonableness, this court examines whether the district court gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor; the district court did not err in weighing defendant's record on supervised release in determining sentence; the court's conclusion that a longer sentence with no further supervised release would better suit Hall's poor record while on supervised release was reasonable.
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.