United States v. York Wilson


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Bobby E. Shepherd, Morris S. Arnold and Jane Kelly (UNPUBLISHED); Granting [4419854-2] motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr.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

Download PDF
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for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: November 29, 2016 Filed: December 1, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SHEPHERD, ARNOLD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.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

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?