United States v. Damarius Simmons, No. 19-2505 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Shepherd, Kelly and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. The sentence imposed upon the revocation of defendant's supervised release was substantively reasonable; special condition involving a stay at a residential reentry center was not plain error.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-2505 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Damarius Asim Simmons, also known as D-Mac, also known as D lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Waterloo ____________ Submitted: November 14, 2019 Filed: November 26, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SHEPHERD, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Damarius Simmons appeals the judgment of the district court1 revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to six months in prison and three years of 1 The Honorable Charles J. Williams, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. supervised release, with a special condition--among others--that he reside in a residential reentry center for up to 120 days following his release from custody. Following careful review of the record, and particularly the transcript of the revocation hearing, we conclude that the district court imposed a substantively reasonable sentence. See United States v. McGhee, 869 F.3d 703, 705-06 (8th Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (holding that substantive reasonableness of revocation sentence is reviewed under same abuse-of-discretion standard applied to initial sentences). There is no indication that the district court overlooked a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). Nor is there any indication that the additional imposition of the special condition involving up to 120 days at a residential reentry center amounted to plain error. See United States v. Carlson, 406 F3d. 529, 531 (8th Cir. 2005) (holding that review of sentencing judge’s imposition of special condition of supervised release is generally for abuse of discretion, but is for plain error when defendant fails to object). We affirm the judgment of the district court and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. ______________________________ -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.
