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)
16-4139•United States of America v. Yliyah Rephayah Ben Yisrayl, also known as Carl Watkins
16-4139Court of Appeals for the Eighth CircuitOct 31, 2017
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 17-2384
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Yliyah Rephayah Ben Yisrayl, also known as Carl Watkins
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
____________
Submitted: October 12, 2017
Filed: October 25, 2017
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Yliyah Rephayah Ben Yisrayl appeals the district court’s order revoking his1
supervised release and imposing a 10-month sentence. His counsel has moved for
The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern1
District of Missouri.
-- 1 of 2 --
leave to withdraw. Ben Yisrayl has filed 3 pro se briefs challenging his criminal
history category, and the administration of his initial sentence; and a motion seeking
appointment of new counsel.
After careful review of the record, we conclude that the revocation Guidelines
range was properly calculated using the criminal history category applicable at the
time of initial sentencing, see U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a); United States v. Hendershot, 469
F.3d 703, 705 (8th Cir. 2006); that the administration of Ben Yisrayl’s original
sentence is not properly on appeal, see United States v. Tindall, 455 F.3d 885, 888
(8th Cir. 2006); and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing
Ben Yisrayl, see United States v. Johnson, 827 F.3d 740, 744 (8th Cir. 2016); see also
Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2468 (2007) (standard of review); United
States v. Gray, 533 F.3d 942, 943-44 (8th Cir. 2008); United States v. Todd, 521 F.3d
891, 897 (8th Cir. 2008).
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, deny the motion for new
counsel, and affirm.
______________________________
-2-
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.