Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Andrew Spotted Elk, 15-1941 (2015)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Number: 15-1941 Visitors: 15
Filed: Aug. 24, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 15-1941 _ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Andrew Spotted Elk lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant _ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of South Dakota - Pierre _ Submitted: August 19, 2015 Filed: August 24, 2015 [Unpublished] _ Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Andrew Spotted Elk directly appeals the sentence that the district court1 impo
More
                 United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 15-1941
                         ___________________________

                              United States of America

                        lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

                                           v.

                                Andrew Spotted Elk

                       lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
                                       ____________

                    Appeal from United States District Court
                     for the District of South Dakota - Pierre
                                  ____________

                            Submitted: August 19, 2015
                              Filed: August 24, 2015
                                  [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
                          ____________

PER CURIAM.

     Andrew Spotted Elk directly appeals the sentence that the district court1
imposed upon revoking his supervised release, arguing that his six-month prison

      1
       The Honorable Roberto A. Lange, United States District Judge for the District
of South Dakota.
sentence is substantively unreasonable. Upon careful review, see United States v.
Miller, 
557 F.3d 910
, 915-16 (8th Cir. 2009) (appellate review of revocation
sentence), we conclude that the within-Guidelines-range sentence is not substantively
unreasonable, see United States v. Petreikis, 
551 F.3d 822
, 824 (8th Cir. 2009). We
grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. The judgment is affirmed.
                       ______________________________




                                         -2-

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer