United States v. Kenton Eagle Chasing, No. 19-2420 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseThe Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's revocation sentence after he violated the terms of his supervised release. The court held that a revocation sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3583(e) does not violate defendant's constitutional rights; defendant failed to demonstrate that the district court judge was impartial and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for recusal; the evidence was sufficient to show that defendant violated the conditions of his release by failing to reside at his residential re-entry center and by eluding the police; even if the district court's conclusion that defendant's conduct amounted to eluding the police was incorrect, the error did not affect defendant's sentence and was harmless; and the revocation sentence was neither procedurally unsound or substantively unreasonable.
Court Description: [Kobes, Author, with Gruender and Wollman, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. The district court had jurisdiction over this probation revocation proceeding under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3583, and the court would not consider defendant's argument that the location of his 2002 offense deprived the court of jurisdiction at his original prosecution; revocation of supervised release without a jury trial does not violate defendant's constitutional rights under the Sixth Amendment; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for recusal; the evidence was sufficient to show defendant violated the terms of his supervised release by failing to reside at his residential re-entry center and by eluding the police; even if defendant did not, on these facts, elude Tribal Police, the error in finding the violation did not affect defendant's sentence and was harmless; the court committed no procedural error in determining defendant's revocation sentence, and the sentence was not substantively unreasonable.
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.