United States v. Terry Sanders


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Raymond W. Gruender, Pasco M. Bowman and Ralph R. Erickson (UNPUBLISHED); Granting [4605466-2] motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. R. Brannon Sloan, Jr..; Denying [4593464-2] motion for correction of the presentence report, filed by Appellant Mr. Terry L. Sanders. [4648684] [17-2808]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-2808 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Terry L. Sanders lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock ____________ Submitted: April 5, 2018 Filed: April 11, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. In this direct criminal appeal, Terry Sanders challenges the order of the district court revoking his supervised release and imposing a 20-month sentence. His 1 1 The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Appellate Case: 17-2808 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/11/2018 Entry ID: 4648684 counsel has moved to withdraw, and has submitted a brief discussing the substantive reasonableness of the revocation sentence. Sanders has filed pro se briefs, arguing that the district court failed to explain adequately the revocation sentence, and challenging his underlying conviction and sentence. Upon careful review of the record, we conclude that Sanders’s revocation sentence was not substantively unreasonable, as the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and there was no indication the court overlooked a relevant factor or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the relevant factors. See United States v. Johnson, 827 F.3d 740, 744 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard of review). We further conclude that the district court adequately explained its rationale for the revocation sentence. See United States v. Krzyzaniak, 702 F.3d 1082, 1085 (8th Cir. 2013) (district court’s explanation is sufficient if record as whole demonstrates court considered relevant factors). We also reject Sanders’s challenge to his underlying conviction and sentence. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 913 (8th Cir. 2009) (defendant may challenge validity of his underlying conviction and sentence through direct appeal or habeas corpus proceeding, not through collateral attack in supervised-release revocation proceeding). Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw, and we affirm. We also deny Sanders’s appellate motion to correct the presentence report. ______________________________ -2- Appellate Case: 17-2808 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/11/2018 Entry ID: 4648684

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?