United States v. Larry Shaw


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: James B. Loken, Pasco M. Bowman and Steven M. Colloton (UNPUBLISHED); Granting [3940189-2] motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. Robert Kuchar. [3991131] [12-2546]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 12-2546 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Larry R. Shaw lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: December 28, 2012 Filed: January 7, 2013 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. After the District Court1 found that Larry Shaw had violated the conditions of his release, the court revoked Shaw’s supervised release and imposed a sentence of 1 The Honorable Greg Kays, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. Appellate Case: 12-2546 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Entry ID: 3991131 thirteen months in prison followed by twenty-three months of supervised release. Shaw appeals, arguing that the sentence is unreasonable. We disagree. The record shows that the District Court credited the victim’s hearing testimony over Shaw’s, properly considered relevant sentencing factors, and imposed a revocation sentence that was authorized by statute and within the applicable Guidelines range. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(b), (e)(3), (h); United States v. Petreikis, 551 F.3d 822, 824 (8th Cir. 2009) (applying a presumption of substantive reasonableness to a revocation sentence within the Guidelines range); United States v. White Face, 383 F.3d 733, 740 (8th Cir. 2004) (reiterating that a district court need not list every 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factor when sentencing a defendant upon the revocation of his supervised release); United States v. Carothers, 337 F.3d 1017, 1019 (8th Cir. 2003) (noting that the government must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a defendant violated a supervised-release condition; a district court’s finding that a violation occurred is reviewed for clear error and its credibility determinations at supervised-releaserevocation hearing are virtually unreviewable on appeal). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of the District Court. ______________________________ -2- Appellate Case: 12-2546 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/07/2013 Entry ID: 3991131

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?