Filed: Aug. 08, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 03-1472 _ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Southern District of Iowa. Kendrick Epping, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. * _ Submitted: August 5, 2003 Filed: August 8, 2003 _ Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Kendrick Epping appeals the district court’s1 imposition of a 10-month prison term and an additional 26-month supervise
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 03-1472 _ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Southern District of Iowa. Kendrick Epping, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. * _ Submitted: August 5, 2003 Filed: August 8, 2003 _ Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Kendrick Epping appeals the district court’s1 imposition of a 10-month prison term and an additional 26-month supervised..
More
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 03-1472
___________
United States of America, *
*
Appellee, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* Southern District of Iowa.
Kendrick Epping, * [UNPUBLISHED]
*
Appellant. *
___________
Submitted: August 5, 2003
Filed: August 8, 2003
___________
Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Kendrick Epping appeals the district court’s1 imposition of a 10-month prison
term and an additional 26-month supervised-release term, upon revocation of his
supervised release from a bank robbery conviction. On appeal, he argues that the
district court instead should have imposed inpatient treatment.
1
The Honorable Ronald E. Longstaff, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa.
After careful review of the record, we find that the sentence was within the
limits of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) and was not an abuse of discretion. See United
States v. Grimes,
54 F.3d 489, 492 (8th Cir. 1995) (standard of review). Accordingly,
we affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
-2-