Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Richard Whitsitt, 19-3240 (2020)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Number: 19-3240 Visitors: 8
Filed: Mar. 26, 2020
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 19-3240 _ United States of America Plaintiff - Appellee v. Richard W. Whitsitt Defendant - Appellant _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City _ Submitted: March 23, 2020 Filed: March 26, 2020 [Unpublished] _ Before ERICKSON, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Richard Whitsitt appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed upon revoking his supervised release. Pursuant t
More
                 United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 19-3240
                         ___________________________

                             United States of America

                                Plaintiff - Appellee

                                         v.

                                Richard W. Whitsitt

                               Defendant - Appellant
                                  ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
                                 ____________

                            Submitted: March 23, 2020
                              Filed: March 26, 2020
                                  [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before ERICKSON, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
                           ____________

PER CURIAM.

      Richard Whitsitt appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed upon revoking
his supervised release. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 
386 U.S. 738
(1967), his

      1
      The Honorable Beth Phillips, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the
Western District of Missouri.
counsel moved for leave to withdraw and filed a brief arguing that the sentence is
substantively unreasonable.

      On review, we conclude that the district court did not impose an unreasonable
sentence. See United States v. Miller, 
557 F.3d 910
, 915–18 (8th Cir. 2009)
(appellate court first ensures no significant procedural error occurred, then considers
substantive reasonableness of sentence under deferential abuse-of-discretion
standard). The court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, provided
appropriate reasons for its decision, and imposed a sentence below the statutory
maximum. United States v. Larison, 
432 F.3d 921
, 922– 24 (8th Cir. 2006)
(revocation sentence may be unreasonable if district court fails to consider relevant
§ 3553(a) factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits
clear error of judgment); 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (maximum prison term upon
revocation is 2 years for Class C felony). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to
withdraw and affirm.
                         ______________________________




                                         -2-

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer