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PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: James B. Loken, Diana E. Murphy and Kermit E. Bye (UNPUBLISHED); Granting [4300672-2] motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr.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]

Download PDF
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Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines ____________ Submitted: January 22, 2016 Filed: March 2, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BYE, Circuit Judges.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?