United States v. Kevin Green


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: James B. Loken, Duane Benton and Jane Kelly (UNPUBLISHED); Granting [4383095-2] motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Ms. Shannon Elkins. [4438723] [16-1466]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-1466 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Kevin Green lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul ____________ Submitted: August 11, 2016 Filed: August 18, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, BENTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Kevin Green appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to a prison term within his advisory Guidelines range. On appeal, 1 The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. Appellate Case: 16-1466 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/18/2016 Entry ID: 4438723 counsel argues that the district court improperly relied upon a sentencing factor that is listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A), but not in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). In supplemental pro se filings, Green challenges the district court’s factual findings and suggests that his sentence is unreasonable because the court purportedly imposed an above-Guidelines-range sentence without an adequate explanation. Additionally, his counsel has moved to withdraw. Green did not raise the sentencing factor argument before the district court, so our review is for plain error. See United States v. Ruiz-Salazar, 785 F.3d 1270, 1272 (8th Cir. 2015) (per curiam). Because our circuit’s precedent does not clearly establish that erroneously reciting the § 3553(a)(2)(A) sentencing factors in the revocation context is procedural error, United States v. Martin, 757 F.3d 776, 780 & n.2 (8th Cir. 2014), and because the district court also relied on the nature and circumstances of the offense in imposing the sentence requested by Green’s counsel, we find no plain error here. As to Green’s pro se arguments, we conclude that the district court’s factual findings were not clearly erroneous, see United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 914 (8th Cir. 2009) (clear error review of district court’s factual findings), and that his within-Guidelines-range sentence is not unreasonable, see United States v. Petreikis, 551 F.3d 822, 824 (8th Cir. 2009) (applying presumption of reasonableness to revocation sentence within Guidelines range); see also United States v. Melton, 666 F.3d 513, 517-18 (8th Cir. 2012) (referring to court-imposed time in residential reentry center as special condition of supervised release). The judgment is affirmed. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. ______________________________ -2- Appellate Case: 16-1466 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/18/2016 Entry ID: 4438723

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?