United States v. Denise Burrell, No. 18-1787 (8th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case
Court Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Gruender and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Sentence imposed upon the revocation of defendant's supervised release was not an abuse of the district court's discretion. [ August 24, 2018
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-1787 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Denise Burrell lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Waterloo ____________ Submitted: August 22, 2018 Filed: August 27, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, GRUENDER, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Denise Burrell directly appeals the supervised-release revocation sentence imposed by the district court.1 Her revocation sentence is composed of six months 1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. in prison and one year of supervised release. On appeal, Burrell argues that the sentence is unreasonable because placement in a residential re-entry center would have been more beneficial to Burrell and the community than incarceration. In addition, her counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. Reviewing Burrell’s revocation sentence for an abuse of discretion, see United States v. Growden, 663 F.3d 982, 984 (8th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (reviewing the reasonableness of a supervised-release revocation sentence under a deferential abuseof-discretion standard), we conclude that the sentence is not unreasonable, as both the prison term and the supervised-release term are within the statutory limits, the prison term is within the applicable advisory Guidelines range, and the district court imposed the sentence upon considering relevant matters and indicating that incarceration was warranted in light of Burrell’s pattern of unsuccessful supervision, see United States v. Petreikis, 551 F.3d 822, 824 (8th Cir. 2009) (applying a presumption of reasonableness to a revocation sentence within the Guidelines range); United States v. White Face, 383 F.3d 733, 740 (8th Cir. 2004) (stating that a district court need not mechanically list every 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factor when sentencing a defendant upon revocation and noting that all that is required is the consideration of relevant matters and some stated reason for the court’s decision). We affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. ______________________________ -2-