United States v. Elbert, No. 20-2340 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 28 month sentence imposed after he violated his fourth term of supervised release. Although the district court did not recite the guideline range at the hearing, the record shows that the advisory range was properly calculated in a violation worksheet that the probation office submitted to the court several days before the proceeding. The court has previously said that where the court has before it a revocation packet from the probation office that includes the proper guideline analysis, and the defendant requests a sentence recommended by the probation office, then there is no plain error in the court’s failure to mention the guidelines. In this case, the violation worksheet calculated the correct advisory range and defendant has failed to establish that the district court obviously failed to calculate and consider the guideline range.
The court also concluded that there was no obvious error in the adequacy of the district court's sentencing explanation, and defendant has not shown a reasonable probability that a more detailed explanation would have resulted in a more favorable sentence. Finally, the court concluded that defendant's sentence was reasonable given his track record of incorrigibility and it was not unreasonable for the district court to impose a term of imprisonment that exceeded the advisory guideline range, discharging him from supervision.
Court Description: [Colloton, Author, with Loken and Benton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Where the court has before it a revocation packet from the probation office that includes the proper guidelines analysis, and the defendant requests a a sentence recommended by the probation officer, there is no plain error in the court's failure to mention the guidelines, and defendant's argument that the district court obviously failed to calculate and consider the guidelines range is rejected; there is no obvious error in the adequacy of the district court's explanation of its sentencing decision, and defendant has not shown a reasonable probability that a fuller explanation would have resulted in a more favorable sentence; defendant's sentence, an upward variance was not substantively unreasonable, given defendant was a recidivist violator of supervised release and presented the district court with a track record of incorrigibility.
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.