Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
22-3156•United States of America v. Troy Michael Barnes, also known as Troy Barnes
22-3156Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit31.10.2024
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-2136
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Troy Michael Barnes, also known as Troy Barnes
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Central
____________
Submitted: September 26, 2024
Filed: October 1, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Troy Barnes appeals the above-Guidelines sentence the district court1
imposed upon revoking his supervised release. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, this court affirms.
1 The Honorable Stephen H. Locher, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of Iowa.
-- 1 of 2 --
-2-
Barnes’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and filed a brief under
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence is substantively
unreasonable. After careful review, this court concludes that the district court did
not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Miller, 557
F.3d 910, 917 (8th Cir. 2009) (substantive reasonableness of revocation sentence is
reviewed under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard); United States v. Feemster,
572 F.3d 455, 464 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (“it will be the unusual case when we
reverse a district court sentence--whether within, above, or below the applicable
Guidelines range--as substantively unreasonable”). The record reflects that the
district court adequately considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See United
States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 923 (8th Cir. 2006) (revocation sentence may be
unreasonable if court fails to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight to
improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment). Additionally, the
revocation sentence was within the statutory maximum. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3)
(maximum revocation prison term is two years if underlying offense is Class C
felony), (h) (length of new supervised-release term shall not exceed term authorized
by statute for offense of conviction, less revocation prison terms), (k) (maximum
supervised release term for offense under 18 U.S.C. § 2252 is life).
The judgment is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.
______________________________
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.