United States of America v. Jeffrey Colin Purdy

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-2620
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Jeffrey Colin Purdy
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota
____________
Submitted: June 11, 2025
Filed: June 16, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, BENTON, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Jeffrey Purdy appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised release
and sentenced him to 14 months in prison, and 22 months of supervised release, with
1The Honorable Susan Richard Nelson, United States District Judge for the
District of Minnesota.

-- 1 of 3 --

location monitoring for the duration of the term and a condition that the defendant
remain at his residence every day during set hours as directed by his probation officer.
His counsel filed a brief that challenged the district court’s findings that Purdy
violated the conditions of his supervised release; raised the issue of whether the
district court violated Purdy’s constitutional rights to request a subpoena in a civil
case and to criticize his probation officer; and discussed whether the district court
abused its discretion in revoking Purdy’s term of supervised release. Purdy filed a
supplemental brief that argued the district court clearly erred in finding each of the
three violations of the conditions of his supervised release; the United States Attorney
improperly refused to provide emails between Purdy and his probation officer; the
district court plainly erred in its calculation of his criminal history; and the district
court erred by imposing a revocation sentence that included both incarceration and
home confinement. We granted counsel’s motion to withdraw and set a briefing
schedule. Purdy moved to have his supplemental brief accepted as his appellate brief,
and we grant that motion.
We first conclude there was no clear error in the district court’s finding that it
was more likely than not that Purdy violated the conditions of his supervised release,
and no abuse of discretion in revoking Purdy’s supervised release. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(e)(3) (court may revoke supervised release if it finds by preponderance of
evidence that defendant violated release conditions); United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d
910, 914 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review). There is no indication that the district
court violated any of Purdy’s constitutional rights. See Mosby v. Mabry, 697 F.2d
213, 214 (8th Cir. 1982) (Sixth Amendment rights are discretionary in civil matters);
Doe v. Pulaski Cnty. Special Sch. Dist., 306 F.3d 616, 622 (8th Cir. 2002) (en banc)
(First Amendment protections do not extend to threats of violence).
The government’s alleged refusal to provide emails is not grounds for reversal
in light of Purdy’s clear and ongoing violations of the conditions of his supervised
release. See Miller, 557 F.3d at 914 (district court need only find single violation to
-2-

-- 2 of 3 --

revoke supervised release). We conclude that the district court did not plainly err in
calculating Purdy’s criminal history or the Sentencing Guidelines range that applied
to his revocation. See United States v. Holdsworth, 830 F.3d 779, 783 (8th Cir. 2016)
(plain-error review applies when defendant fails to timely object to procedural
sentencing error). Lastly, although this court’s precedent does allow the imposition
of a term of home confinement following imprisonment, see United States v. Floss,
42 F.4th 854, 860 (8th Cir. 2022), we conclude that the location monitoring
condition, with daily restrictions on the hours Purdy must remain at his residence, is
not a term of home confinement, see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(4) (court may order the
defendant to remain at his place of residence during nonworking hours).
Accordingly, we affirm.
______________________________
-3-

-- 3 of 3 --