The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
13-2545•United States of America v. Lowell Andrew Billy
13-2545Court of Appeals for the Eighth CircuitOct 30, 2014
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 14-2000
___________________________
United States of America,
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
Lowell Andrew Billy,
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant.
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas - Ft. Smith
____________
Submitted: October 1, 2014
Filed: October 6, 2014
[Unpublished]
____________
Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Lowell Billy directly appeals after the district court revoked his supervised1
release and sentenced him within the Chapter 7 advisory Guidelines range to 12
The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the1
Western District of Arkansas.
-- 1 of 2 --
months and 1 day in prison. His counsel has filed a brief arguing that Billy’s sentence
is substantively unreasonable. His counsel has also moved for leave to withdraw.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose an
unreasonable revocation sentence. See United States v. Growden, 663 F.3d 982, 984
(8th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (describing appellate review of revocation sentencing
decisions); United States v. Petreikis, 551 F.3d 822, 824 (8th Cir. 2009) (applying
presumption of substantive reasonableness to revocation sentence within Guidelines
range).
As for counsel’s motion to withdraw, we conclude that allowing counsel to
withdraw at this time would not be consistent with the Eighth Circuit’s 1994
Amendment to Part V of the Plan to Implement The Criminal Justice Act of 1964.
We therefore deny counsel’s motion to withdraw as premature, without prejudice to
counsel refiling the motion upon fulfilling the duties set forth in the Amendment.
Judge Colloton would grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See United States
v. Eredia, No. 13-3538, slip op. at 2-3 (8th Cir. Oct. 2, 2014) (unpublished)
(Colloton, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
______________________________
-2-
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.