Filed: Jun. 08, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 16-1214 _ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Eldon Philip Anderson lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant _ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul _ Submitted: June 3, 2016 Filed: June 8, 2016 [Unpublished] _ Before SMITH, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Eldon Anderson appeals the district court’s1 order modifying his supervised relea
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 16-1214 _ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Eldon Philip Anderson lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant _ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul _ Submitted: June 3, 2016 Filed: June 8, 2016 [Unpublished] _ Before SMITH, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Eldon Anderson appeals the district court’s1 order modifying his supervised releas..
More
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 16-1214
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Eldon Philip Anderson
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul
____________
Submitted: June 3, 2016
Filed: June 8, 2016
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Eldon Anderson appeals the district court’s1 order modifying his supervised
release conditions to add a special condition that he reside for a period of up to 120
1
The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District
of Minnesota.
days in a residential reentry center, as approved by his probation officer. Having
carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in adding the condition, see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2); and additionally, we
decline to consider Anderson’s attempt, in his pro se submissions before us, to
collaterally attack his underlying conviction, see United States v. Miller,
557 F.3d
910, 913 (8th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw, and we
affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
-2-