United States v. Kenneth Simpson


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Lavenski R. Smith, Morris S. Arnold and Bobby E. Shepherd (UNPUBLISHED) [4404759] [16-1031]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-1031 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Kenneth Robert Simpson lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________ Submitted: May 25, 2016 Filed: May 31, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SMITH, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. At a supervised release revocation hearing, Kenneth Simpson admitted that immediately upon commencement of his lifetime term of supervision, he had refused to follow his probation officer’s instruction to register as a sex offender. He directly Appellate Case: 16-1031 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/31/2016 Entry ID: 4404759 appeals after the district court1 revoked supervision, sentenced him to 12 months in prison, and reimposed a lifetime term of supervision. Upon careful review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that Simpson’s arguments for reversal lack merit. First, we reject his argument that the district court abused its discretion by failing to recuse itself. See United States v. Martin, 757 F.3d 776, 778 (8th Cir. 2014) (standard of review). Second, Simpson’s challenges regarding jurisdiction and double jeopardy amount to improperly raised collateral attacks on his underlying conviction and sentence. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 913 (8th Cir. 2009). Third, the record supports the district court’s finding that Simpson violated his supervised release. See United States v. Black Bear, 542 F.3d 249, 252 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard of review). Fourth, the court did not err in reimposing a lifetime term of supervision, see 18 U.S.C.§§ 3583(h), (k); United States v. Asalati, 615 F.3d 1001, 1006 (8th Cir. 2010) (reasonableness of revocation sentence reviewed for abuse of discretion), and we reject his challenge to the reimposition of special release conditions, see United States v. Koch, 625 F.3d 470, 481 (8th Cir. 2010). Finally, Simpson’s newly raised constitutional challenge to the Sex Offender Registration Act is not properly before us. See Liberty State Bank v. Minnesota Life & Health Ins. Guar. Ass’n, 149 F.3d 832, 834 (8th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, we affirm. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Rodney W. Sippel, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. -2- Appellate Case: 16-1031 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/31/2016 Entry ID: 4404759

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?