United States v. Stephen Morais, No. 18-3687 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Erickson and Stras, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. The sentence imposed upon defendant's guilty plea to the new offense of failing to register as a sex offender was not substantively unreasonable; nor did the court err in making the sentence imposed upon the revocation of defendant's supervised release consecutive to the sentence for his new offense - see Guidelines Sec. 5G1.3 comment.(n.4(C)). Home | Contact Us | Employment | Glossary of Legal Terms | Site Map | RSS Privacy Policy|BrowseAloud
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-3686 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Stephen D. Morais lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ___________________________ No. 18-3687 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Stephen D. Morais lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeals from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville ____________ Submitted: June 25, 2019 Filed: July 1, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. In these consolidated appeals, Stephen D. Morais challenges the prison sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to failing to register as a sex offender; and he challenges the consecutive prison sentence the district court imposed upon revoking his supervised release. Morais’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentences are substantively unreasonable. After careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence for either the new conviction or the revocation. See United States v. McGhee, 869 F.3d 703, 705-06 (8th Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (revocation sentencing decisions are reviewed under same standards as initial sentencing decisions; substantive reasonableness of either type of sentence is reviewed for abuse of discretion). The record reflects that, in determining each sentence, the court considered and discussed relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, see United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (abuse of discretion occurs in criminal sentencing when court fails to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment in weighing appropriate factors); United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 917 (8th Cir. 2009) (same for revocation sentencing); and imposed a sentence within the Guidelines range, see United States v. St. Claire, 831 F.3d 1039, 1043 (8th Cir. 2016) (within-Guidelines criminal sentence is accorded a presumption of substantive reasonableness on appeal); United States v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107, 1110 (8th Cir. 2008) (same for revocation sentence). We further conclude that the district court did 1 The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. -2- not err when it ordered that the sentences be served consecutively. See U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3 comment. (n.4(C)) (recommending that a revocation sentence and a sentence for a new offense run consecutively). An independent review of the record reveals no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988). Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw, and we affirm both sentences. ______________________________ -3-
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.
