United States v. Calvin Bankhead, No. 19-3096 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Benton, Shepherd and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Defendant was not entitled to a jury trial to determine whether he had violated a condition of his supervised release; the district court did not err in finding defendant had violated a condition of his supervised release by failing to register as a sex offender.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-3096 ___________________________ United States of America Plaintiff - Appellee v. Calvin Bankhead Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ____________ Submitted: October 23, 2020 Filed: November 9, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Calvin Bankhead pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). The district court 1 sentenced him to 180 months in prison, later reduced to 96 months, and 3 years of supervised 1 The Honorable David S. Doty, United Sates District Judge for the District of Minnesota. release. After release, the United States probation office alleged he violated a condition of his supervised release by failing to register as a sex offender. He contested the violation and moved for a jury trial. The district court denied the motion and revoked his release, sentencing him to 21 months in prison and no supervised release. He appeals the denial of his motion and the finding that he violated a condition of release. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms. Bankhead maintains he was entitled to a jury trial to determine whether he violated a condition of his supervised release. Specifically, he contends that revocation under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) is unconstitutional as applied to his case. This argument has no merit. Revocation under § 3583(e)(3) “is a sanction connected to the original offense, and the statute affords the district court wide discretion to determine whether to revoke supervision and what sentence to impose.” United States v. Eagle Chasing, 965 F.3d 647, 650-51 (8th Cir. 2020) (holding that a district court’s “revocation sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)” does not violate a defendant’s “constitutional rights to have a jury determine his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt”), cert. denied, 2020 WL 6037329 (U.S. Oct. 13, 2020). Bankhead also contends the district court erred in finding he failed to register as a sex offender. He requests “reversal of his revocation and a remand to the district court to empanel a jury to answer the question whether Bankhead indeed committed a crime.” This court finds no clear error in the district court’s finding that Bankhead failed to register as a sex offender, and no abuse of discretion in its revocation of his supervised release. ******* The judgment is affirmed. ______________________________ -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.
