United States v. Angelo Hambrick, No. 21-2488 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Benton, Kelly, and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable. [ October 14, 2021 ]
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 21-2488 ___________________________ United States of America Plaintiff - Appellee v. Angelo L. Hambrick, also known as Deangelo Hambrick Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern ____________ Submitted: October 12, 2021 Filed: October 15, 2021 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BENTON, KELLY, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Angelo L. Hambrick appeals the Guidelines-range sentence the district court 1 imposed upon revoking his supervised release. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms. 1 The Honorable John J. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. Hambrick’s counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U. S. 738 (1967) and has moved for leave to withdraw. He challenges the sentence as substantively unreasonable. This court concludes that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 916 (8th Cir. 2009) (substantive reasonableness of revocation sentence is reviewed under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard). The record reflects that the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and imposed a sentence that was within the Guidelines range and below the statutory limit. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3583(e)(3) (maximum revocation prison term is 5 years if underlying offense is Class A felony), (h) (length of new supervised-release term shall not exceed term authorized by statute for offense of conviction, less revocation prison terms); United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 922-924 (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); cf. United States v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107, 1110 (8th Cir. 2008) (revocation sentence within Guidelines range is accorded presumption of substantive reasonableness on appeal). The judgment is affirmed. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. ______________________________ -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.
