Filed: Oct. 16, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 15-2478 _ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Johnathan S. Moser lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City _ Submitted: October 13, 2015 Filed: October 16, 2015 [Unpublished] _ Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Johnathan Moser directly appeals the sentence that the district cou
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 15-2478 _ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Johnathan S. Moser lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City _ Submitted: October 13, 2015 Filed: October 16, 2015 [Unpublished] _ Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Johnathan Moser directly appeals the sentence that the district cour..
More
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 15-2478
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Johnathan S. Moser
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
____________
Submitted: October 13, 2015
Filed: October 16, 2015
[Unpublished]
____________
Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Johnathan Moser directly appeals the sentence that the district court1 imposed
upon revoking his supervised release, arguing that the 18-month sentence, which is
1
The Honorable David Gregory Kays, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri.
above the advisory Guidelines range, 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 revocation sentence is not
unreasonable, as the district court gave sufficient reasons to support the sentence. See
United States v. Larison,
432 F.3d 921, 924 (8th Cir. 2006) (affirming statutory
maximum revocation sentence where district court justified decision by giving
supporting reasons). We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
The judgment is affirmed.
______________________________
-2-