United States v. Bennie Manuel, No. 18-1876 (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 substantively reasonable; the condition of supervised release challenged in the appeal was now moot. [ September 11, 2018
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-1876 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Bennie Manuel lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Western Division ____________ Submitted: September 6, 2018 Filed: September 12, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, GRUENDER, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Bennie Manuel initiated this appeal after the district court1 revoked a sentence of probation he was serving and sentenced him to a prison term of time served and 1 The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. supervised release for one year. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief arguing that the probation-revocation sentence is unreasonable and that the court plainly erred by imposing a special condition for Manuel’s one year of supervised release. Since the filing of this appeal, however, the district court has revoked Manuel’s supervised-release term for violating conditions other than the one being challenged and has imposed a nine-month prison term with no additional supervised release. That supervised-release-revocation sentence is not on appeal. We decline to address the challenged supervised-release condition, as it has become moot. Cf. United States v. Wynn, 553 F.3d 1114, 1119 (8th Cir. 2009) (applying mootness to certain conditions of probation where probation had been revoked). Addressing the reasonableness issue, which arguably is not moot, we conclude that the district court did not impose a substantively or procedurally unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Keatings, 787 F.3d 1197, 1202 (8th Cir. 2015) (reviewing substantive reasonableness of probation-revocation sentence under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard and reviewing unpreserved procedural objection for plain error); see also 18 U.S.C. §§ 4 (setting forth maximum prison term), 3583(b)(3) (setting forth maximum supervised-release term). Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. ______________________________ -2-