United States v. Andrew Christensen
Filing
PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: James B. Loken, Diana E. Murphy and Kermit E. Bye (UNPUBLISHED); Granting [4300672-2] motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. Timothy S. Ross-Boon for appellant. [4373333] [15-2425, 15-2426]
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[Unpublished]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.
Appellate Case: 15-2425
Page: 1
Date Filed: 03/02/2016 Entry ID: 4373333
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-
Appellate Case: 15-2425
Page: 2
Date Filed: 03/02/2016 Entry ID: 4373333
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?