United States v. York Wilson

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Bobby E. Shepherd, Morris S. Arnold and Jane Kelly (UNPUBLISHED); Granting [4419854-2] motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. Stephen C. Moss. [4474611] [16-2010]

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 16-2010
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
York Omar Wilson
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
____________
Submitted: November 29, 2016
Filed: December 1, 2016
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SHEPHERD, ARNOLD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
York Wilson appeals the district court’s1 order revoking his supervised release
and imposing a 24-month sentence. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed
1

The Honorable Dean Whipple, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Missouri.

Appellate Case: 16-2010

Page: 1

Date Filed: 12/01/2016 Entry ID: 4474611

a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the alleged
violation was not established by a preponderance of the evidence, and that the district
court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence.
We conclude the district court did not clearly err in finding that Wilson
violated his supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (court may revoke
supervised release if it finds by preponderance of evidence that defendant violated
conditions of supervised release); United States v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107, 1109 (8th
Cir. 2008) (fact-finding as to whether violation occurred is reviewed for clear error);
United States v. Carothers, 337 F.3d 1017, 1019 (8th Cir. 2003) (credibility
determinations are exclusive domain of the sentencing judge, and are virtually
unreviewable on appeal). We also conclude the district court did not abuse its
discretion in sentencing Wilson, as it imposed the sentence after properly considering
the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 917 (8th
Cir. 2009) (under substantive-reasonableness test, district court abuses its discretion
if it fails to consider relevant § 3553(a) factor, gives significant weight to improper
or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment in weighing factors); United
States v. Merrival, 521 F.3d 889, 890 (8th Cir. 2008) (substantive reasonableness of
revocation sentence is reviewed under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
______________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 16-2010

Page: 2

Date Filed: 12/01/2016 Entry ID: 4474611