United States v. Richard Whitsitt, No. 19-3240 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Erickson, Grasz and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant's sentence was not unreasonable. [ March 25, 2020 ]
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-3240 ___________________________ United States of America Plaintiff - Appellee v. Richard W. Whitsitt Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: March 23, 2020 Filed: March 26, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before ERICKSON, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Richard Whitsitt appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed upon revoking his supervised release. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), his 1 The Honorable Beth Phillips, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. counsel moved for leave to withdraw and filed a brief arguing that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. On review, we conclude that the district court did not impose an unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 915–18 (8th Cir. 2009) (appellate court first ensures no significant procedural error occurred, then considers substantive reasonableness of sentence under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard). The court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, provided appropriate reasons for its decision, and imposed a sentence below the statutory maximum. United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 922– 24 (8th Cir. 2006) (revocation sentence may be unreasonable if district court fails to consider relevant § 3553(a) factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment); 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (maximum prison term upon revocation is 2 years for Class C felony). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and 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.
