Case ID: f-appx_266/html/0501-01.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. Robert E. WILLIAMS, Appellant.
    No. 06-3362.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: Feb. 21, 2008.
    Filed: Feb. 26, 2008.
    Ronna Holloman-Hughes, Asst. Fed. Public Defender, Kansas City, MO (Raymond C. Conrad, Jr., Fed. Public Defender, on the brief), for appellant.
    John E. Cowles, Asst. U.S. Atty., Kansas City, MO, for appellee.
    Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Robert E. Williams (Williams) appeals the 24-month sentence the district court imposed after revoking his supervised release. After carefully reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we affirm.

We first conclude the district court did not clearly err in finding by a preponderance of the evidence that Williams had violated the conditions of his supervised release. See United States v. Carothers, 337 F.3d 1017, 1019 (8th Cir.2003) (stating the government’s burden of proof, and the clear-error review standard, and finding the district court did not clearly err in concluding that defendant had violated a condition of supervised release by committing assault, where the court found the victim’s testimony credible and defendant’s testimony not credible); United States v. Hernandez, 281 F.3d 746, 748 (8th Cir.2002) (explaining the district court’s witness credibility determinations are virtually unreviewable on appeal).

We further conclude Williams’s sentence is not unreasonable because it is within the applicable statutory maximum, see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (extablishing for a Class C felony, the maximum term of imprisonment upon revocation of supervised release is 2 years), and the sentence resulted from the district court’s consideration of appropriate factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), see United States v. Nelson, 453 F.3d 1004, 1006 (8th Cir.2006) (explaining an appellate court reviews a revocation sentence to determine whether it is unreasonable in relation to, inter alia, § 3553(a) factors and the advisory Guidelines range); United States v. Tyson, 418 F.3d 824, 825 (8th Cir.2005) (per curiam) (declaring revocation sentences are reviewed for unreasonableness in accordance with United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005)).

We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm. 
      
      . The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.