United States v. Cruze Anthony White, No. 18-2337 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Melloy, Author, with Shepherd and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Sentence imposed upon the revocation of defendant's supervised release was substantively reasonable. [ July 05, 2019
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-2337 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Cruze Anthony White lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul ____________ Submitted: April 15, 2019 Filed: July 8, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SHEPHERD, MELLOY, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ MELLOY, Circuit Judge. Defendant Cruze White appeals his 24-month prison sentence. In 2017, after serving a term of imprisonment for voluntary manslaughter, he began a three-year term of supervised release. While on supervised release, he repeatedly violated multiple conditions of his release. For instance, he cut off a GPS ankle bracelet, absconded from multiple residential placement facilities, failed to comply with remote alcohol monitoring, consumed alcohol, and used illegal drugs. The district court,1 after previously modifying White’s conditions of release several times to “get Mr. White back on a straight path,” determined that supervision was not working and, therefore, sentenced him to the statutory-maximum term of imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). White argues that the district court committed reversible error by “improperly weighing the 18 U.S.C. §3553(a) factors and inadequately explaining the basis of its sentence.” He also argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. Having reviewed the record, we see no merit to White’s arguments. The district court committed no significant procedural error, and the sentence imposed is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007) (setting forth the standard for reviewing sentencing decision). We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable John R. Tunheim, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. -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.
