Filed: Jan. 09, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 03-1801 _ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Michael Curry, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. * _ Submitted: December 26, 2003 Filed: January 9, 2004 _ Before RILEY, McMILLIAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. In this direct criminal appeal, Michael Curry (Curry) challenges as excessive the 9-month prison sentence the district court1 im
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 03-1801 _ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Michael Curry, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. * _ Submitted: December 26, 2003 Filed: January 9, 2004 _ Before RILEY, McMILLIAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. In this direct criminal appeal, Michael Curry (Curry) challenges as excessive the 9-month prison sentence the district court1 imp..
More
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 03-1801
___________
United States of America, *
*
Appellee, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* Eastern District of Missouri.
Michael Curry, *
* [UNPUBLISHED]
Appellant. *
___________
Submitted: December 26, 2003
Filed: January 9, 2004
___________
Before RILEY, McMILLIAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
In this direct criminal appeal, Michael Curry (Curry) challenges as excessive
the 9-month prison sentence the district court1 imposed following revocation of
Curry’s supervised release. Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that
Curry’s revocation sentence is well below the maximum imprisonment term
authorized by statute, is within the range recommended by the Sentencing Guidelines
1
The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri.
policy statements, and is not an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Grimes,
54
F.3d 489, 492 (8th Cir. 1995) (standard of review).
Accordingly, we affirm. We also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
______________________________
-2-