Filed: Jun. 22, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 17-3316 _ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Jonathan Jason McClarin lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City _ Submitted: June 18, 2018 Filed: June 22, 2018 [Unpublished] _ Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Jonathan McClarin appeals after the district court1 revoked his super
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 17-3316 _ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Jonathan Jason McClarin lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City _ Submitted: June 18, 2018 Filed: June 22, 2018 [Unpublished] _ Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Jonathan McClarin appeals after the district court1 revoked his superv..
More
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 17-3316
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Jonathan Jason McClarin
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
____________
Submitted: June 18, 2018
Filed: June 22, 2018
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Jonathan McClarin appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised
release and sentenced him to 24 months in prison. His counsel has moved to
1
The Honorable Roseann A. Ketchmark, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.
withdraw, and filed a brief challenging both the decision to revoke his supervised
release and the resulting revocation sentence. We affirm.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in
finding that McClarin had violated multiple supervised-release conditions, and
therefore did not abuse its discretion by revoking his supervised release. See 18
U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (court may revoke supervised release if it finds by preponderance
of evidence that defendant violated condition of supervised release); see also United
States v. Miller,
557 F.3d 910, 914 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review; single
violation is sufficient to revoke defendant’s supervised release). We also conclude
that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing McClarin, as his
24-month prison term did not exceed the statutory limit for his underlying Class B
felony, and the court appropriately considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing
factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (maximum revocation prison term is 3 years if
underlying offense is Class B felony; before revoking supervised release and imposing
sentence, court must consider specified factors in § 3553(a)); see also United States
v. Johnson,
827 F.3d 740, 744 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard of review).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw,
and we deny the pro se motion for appointment of new counsel.
______________________________
-2-