Case ID: f-appx_435/html/0588-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Reginald NALLS, Appellant.
    No. 11-2592.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: Oct. 25, 2011.
    Filed: Oct. 27, 2011.
    Matthew C. Quinn, U.S. Attorney’s Office, argued, Texarkana, TX, for Appellee.
    Reginald Nalls, argued, Oklahoma City, OK, pro se.
    Gregory Vardaman, argued, Arkadelphia, AR, for Appellant.
    Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
   [UNPUBLISHED]

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, Reginald Nalls challenges the district court’s revocation of his supervised release and the court’s imposition of a one-year prison term as his revocation sentence. Upon careful review, we first conclude that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Nalls had violated his supervised-release conditions, and the court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Nalls’s supervised release. See United States v. Carothers, 337 F.3d 1017, 1019 (8th Cir.2003) (revocation based on finding of violation is reviewed for abuse of discretion; district court’s finding of violation is reviewed for clear error). We further conclude that the district court did not impose an unreasonable revocation sentence by sentencing him to a prison term within the statutory maximum. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (maximum term of imprisonment upon revocation of supervised release is 1 year for Class E felony); United States v. Tyson, 413 F.3d 824, 825 (8th Cir.2005) (per curiam) (revocation sentences reviewed for unreasonableness in accordance with United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005)); see also United States v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107, 1110 (8th Cir.2008) (district court need not make specific findings on 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors; all that is generally required to satisfy appellate court is evidence that court was aware of relevant factors).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. 
      
      . The Honorable Harry F. Barnes, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.