United States v. Maurice Bivens, No. 20-1835 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Shepherd and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. The sentence the district court imposed upon the revocation of defendant's supervised release, while above the advisory guidelines range, was not substantively unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 20-1835 ___________________________ United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee, v. Maurice Leavell Bivens, lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant. ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids ____________ Submitted: November 12, 2020 Filed: December 3, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, SHEPHERD, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Maurice Bivens appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised release and sentenced him above the advisory sentencing guideline range. His counsel has 1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. filed a brief challenging the substantive reasonableness of the sentence and seeking to withdraw. We conclude that the district court imposed a substantively reasonable revocation sentence, as there is no indication that the court overlooked a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the relevant factors. See United States v. McGhee, 869 F.3d 703, 705 (8th Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (substantive reasonableness of revocation sentence is reviewed under same abuse-of-discretion standard applied to initial sentencing decisions); United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (discussing substantive reasonableness). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we 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.
