United States v. Rickey Norton, Jr., No. 19-2652 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Erickson, Grasz and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. The revocation sentence was not substantively unreasonable. [ March 23, 2020 ]
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-2652 ___________________________ United States of America Plaintiff Appellee v. Rickey R. Norton, Jr. Defendant Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: March 19, 2020 Filed: March 24, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before ERICKSON, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Rickey Norton appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to a prison term within the advisory range under Chapter 7 of the 1 The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“Guidelines”) and an additional term of supervised release. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and argues the revocation sentence is substantively unreasonable. We conclude the revocation sentence is not substantively unreasonable. See United States v. McGhee, 869 F.3d 703, 705-06 (8th Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (revocation sentences are reviewed for abuse of discretion). The sentence was within the advisory Guidelines range and the statutory requirements. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3), (h). Furthermore, the district court referenced the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, and explained its reasons for the decision; and there is no indication 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, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (discussing substantive reasonableness; permitting, on appeal, presumption of reasonableness for Guidelines-range sentence). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm. ______________________________ -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.
