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)
15-1900•United States of America v. Terrence Lamar Hawkins
15-1900Court of Appeals for the Eighth CircuitAug 31, 2017
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 17-1232
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Terrence Lamar Hawkins
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City
____________
Submitted: July 24, 2017
Filed: August 4, 2017
[Unpublished]
____________
Before COLLOTON, MURPHY, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Terrence Hawkins brings this appeal after the district court revoked his1
supervised release on concurrent federal sentences that he was serving, and imposed
The Honorable Brian C. Wimes, United States District Judge for the Western1
District of Missouri.
-- 1 of 2 --
concurrent revocation sentences of 10 months in prison and no additional supervised
release.
For reversal, Hawkins challenges as unlawful a search during which a police
officer found drugs in his pocket. This argument fails because Hawkins did not raise
it below, and in any event, he did not allege harassment. See United States v.
Charles, 531 F.3d 637, 640 (8th Cir. 2008) (assuming defendant did not waive Fourth
Amendment argument by failing to raise it before district court, and holding that
exclusionary rule does not apply in revocation of supervised release proceedings
absent showing of harassment). Hawkins also argues that his sentence is
substantively unreasonable, but this argument fails as well. Reviewing for an abuse
of discretion, see United States v. Growden, 663 F.3d 982, 984 (8th Cir. 2011) (per
curiam) (standard of review), we conclude that the sentence, which is within the
advisory Guidelines revocation range, is not unreasonable, see United States v.
Petreikis, 551 F.3d 822, 824 (8th Cir. 2009) (applying presumption of substantive
reasonableness to revocation sentence within Guidelines range).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to
withdraw.
______________________________
-2-
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.