Filed: Mar. 02, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 15-2425 No. 15-2426 _ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Andrew Michael Christensen lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant _ Appeals from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines _ Submitted: January 22, 2016 Filed: March 2, 2016 [Unpublished] _ Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BYE, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. While Andrew Christensen was concurrently serving two per
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 15-2425 No. 15-2426 _ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Andrew Michael Christensen lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant _ Appeals from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines _ Submitted: January 22, 2016 Filed: March 2, 2016 [Unpublished] _ Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BYE, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. While Andrew Christensen was concurrently serving two peri..
More
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 15-2425
No. 15-2426
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Andrew Michael Christensen
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeals from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines
____________
Submitted: January 22, 2016
Filed: March 2, 2016
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BYE, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
While Andrew Christensen was concurrently serving two periods of supervised
release on federal criminal sentences, he admitted to the district court1 that he had
1
The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of Iowa.
violated his release conditions in both cases. The court revoked both supervised
release terms, and imposed concurrent revocation sentences of 24 months in prison
and 12 months of supervised release. On appeal, Christensen contends that the
revocation sentences are substantively unreasonable. Upon careful review of the
record, including the court’s weighing of relevant sentencing factors at the revocation
hearing, we find no basis to conclude that the court abused 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-