Filed: Oct. 14, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 15-2534 _ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Keeyon M. Dunbar lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City _ Submitted: October 7, 2015 Filed: October 14, 2015 [Unpublished] _ Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. While Keeyon Dunbar was serving a period of supervised release on a fed
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 15-2534 _ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Keeyon M. Dunbar lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City _ Submitted: October 7, 2015 Filed: October 14, 2015 [Unpublished] _ Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. While Keeyon Dunbar was serving a period of supervised release on a fede..
More
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 15-2534
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Keeyon M. Dunbar
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
____________
Submitted: October 7, 2015
Filed: October 14, 2015
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
While Keeyon Dunbar was serving a period of supervised release on a federal
criminal sentence, he admitted to the district court1 that he had violated his release
1
The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Missouri.
conditions. The court revoked supervised release and imposed a within-Guidelines-
range revocation sentence of 11 months in prison. On appeal, Dunbar contends that
the sentence is substantively unreasonable. Upon careful review of the record, we
conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion. See United States v. Miller,
557
F.3d 910, 915-16 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review). The judgment is affirmed, and
we grant counsel leave to withdraw.
______________________________
-2-