Filed: Jul. 13, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 16-1594 _ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Robert L. O'Rourke lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Joplin _ Submitted: July 6, 2016 Filed: July 13, 2016 [Unpublished] _ Before SMITH, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Robert L. O’Rourke directly appeals after the district court1 revoked his supe
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 16-1594 _ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Robert L. O'Rourke lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Joplin _ Submitted: July 6, 2016 Filed: July 13, 2016 [Unpublished] _ Before SMITH, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Robert L. O’Rourke directly appeals after the district court1 revoked his super..
More
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 16-1594
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Robert L. O'Rourke
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Joplin
____________
Submitted: July 6, 2016
Filed: July 13, 2016
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Robert L. O’Rourke directly appeals after the district court1 revoked his
supervised release and sentenced him to 6 months in prison and 30 months of
1
The Honorable Brian C. Wimes, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Missouri.
supervised release. After careful review, this court affirms. See United States v.
Miller,
557 F.3d 910, 915-16 (8th Cir. 2009) (this court reviews revocation sentence
for abuse of discretion, first reviewing for significant procedural error, and then
considering substantive reasonableness). The district court identified the relevant
sentencing factors, explained its reasons for the sentence, and did not commit a clear
error of judgment. See
id. at 917 (outlining substantive-reasonableness test); see also
United States v. Hum,
766 F.3d 925, 927-28 (8th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (rejecting
argument that district court failed to adequately consider 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors,
as court properly considered defendant’s history and noncompliance on supervision,
and need to deter and maintain respect for court’s directives).
The judgment is affirmed. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.
______________________________
-2-