United States v. Todd Tuttle, No. 19-3459 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Erickson and Stras, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Anders case. The district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking defendant's supervised release, and the within-guidelines sentence it imposed was not substantively unreasonable. [ April 29, 2020 ]
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-3459 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Todd Allen Tuttle lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of South Dakota - Sioux Falls ____________ Submitted: April 27, 2020 Filed: April 30, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Todd Tuttle appeals a within-Guidelines-range sentence of 10 months in prison for violating the conditions of supervised release. He challenges both the decision to revoke supervised release and the substantive reasonableness of the resulting sentence. His attorney also seeks permission to withdraw. We conclude that the district court 1 did not abuse its discretion when it revoked supervised release. See United States v. Edwards, 400 F.3d 591, 592 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (holding that there was no abuse of discretion when the defendant admitted to violating a supervised-release condition). Nor is Tuttle’s sentence substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 917 (8th Cir. 2009) (applying an abuse-of-discretion standard); United States v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107, 1110 (8th Cir. 2008) (stating that a within-Guidelines-range sentence is presumptively reasonable). The record establishes that the district court sufficiently considered the statutory sentencing factors, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(e)(3), and did not rely on an improper factor or commit a clear error of judgment. See United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 923–24 (8th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and grant counsel permission to withdraw. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota. -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.
