United States of America v. Samuel Kills Crow Indian, also known as Samuel High Hawk

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-2630
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Samuel Kills Crow Indian, also known as Samuel High Hawk
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of South Dakota - Western
____________
Submitted: December 19, 2025
Filed: December 24, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Samuel Kills Crow Indian appeals after the district court1 revoked his
supervised release and sentenced him to a within-Guidelines term of 6 months in
1The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, United States District Judge for the District
of South Dakota.

-- 1 of 2 --

prison concurrent with the sentence imposed in a state case followed by 6 months of
supervised release. His counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief challenging
the district court’s jurisdiction based on the timing of the revocation warrant. In his
subsequent pro se supplement, Kills Crow Indian raises a similar argument.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court possessed jurisdiction,
as the record reflects that a revocation warrant was issued during Kills Crow Indian’s
federal supervision, and the circumstances of his state case provided a reasonable
statutory basis for the timing of his revocation judgment. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(i)
(power of court to revoke term of supervised release for violation of condition and
order defendant to serve term of imprisonment extends beyond expiration of term of
supervised release for any period reasonably necessary for adjudication of matters
arising before its expiration if, before expiration, warrant or summons has been
issued); see also United States v. Hacker, 450 F.3d 808, 814-15 (8th Cir. 2006)
(appellate court reviews district court’s authority to revoke de novo; district court had
authority to revoke defendant’s supervised release where warrant was issued before
term of supervised release expired).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --