United States v. Terrini Griffin, No. 20-2652 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Wollman and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. While defendant has been released from federal prison, her appeal from her revocation sentence is not moot; both the revocation prison term and the supervised release term were both substantively reasonable. [ December 30, 2020 ]
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 20-2652 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Terrini Trenise Griffin lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Central ____________ Submitted: December 28, 2020 Filed: December 31, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, WOLLMAN, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Terrini Trenise Griffin appeals after the district court1 revoked her most recent grant of conditional release and sentenced her to four months in prison, followed by 1 The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. eighteen months of supervised release. Her counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief, asserting that Griffin’s sentence of incarceration with supervised release is substantively unreasonable. We note that Griffin was released from federal prison on October 16, 2020. We conclude that her revocation sentence is not moot, see United States v. Melton, 666 F.3d 513, 514 n.3 (8th Cir. 2012), and that the revocation prison term and supervised release term were both substantively reasonable. The district court sufficiently considered the relevant statutory sentencing factors and did not give significant weight to an improper factor or commit a clear error of judgment. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(e); United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 917 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review). Furthermore, the prison term was below the applicable policy statement range in the Guidelines, see United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 464 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc), and both terms were below the statutory limits, see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(b)(2), (e)(3), (h). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and 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.
