Case ID: f-appx_597/html/0403-01.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, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Patrick Tyrell BAILEY, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-3464.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 25, 2015.
    Filed: March 30, 2015.
    Ian A. Lewis, Asst. Fed. Public Defender, Springfield, MO (Laine Cardarella, Fed. Public Defender, Kansas City, MO, on the brief), for appellant.
    Patrick Tyrell Bailey, Pine Knot, KY, pro se.
    Randall D. Eggert, Asst. U.S. Atty., Springfield, MO, for appellee.
    Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Patrick Bailey appeals the 24-month prison sentence that the District Court imposed after revoking his supervised release for the second time. For reversal, he argues that the sentence is unreasonable because the court failed to consider the length of the sentence imposed after the first revocation of his supervised release and because the sentence is above the advisory range calculated under the Sentencing Guidelines. He also asserts that the above-Guidelines-range sentence violated his due process rights because it was within the advisory range that would have resulted if he had committed a Grade A violation, but the District Court found insufficient evidence to support a Grade A violation and found only multiple Grade C violations.

We conclude that the sentence is neither proeedurally nor substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 915-16 (8th Cir.2009) (standard of review). The District Court calculated the correct advisory Guidelines range and imposed the maximum prison sentence allowed based on its consideration of relevant sentencing factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(8) (statutory maximum). The court did not err in weighing these factors and sufficiently explained its sentencing decision, including a comment on Bailey’s repeated violations of his release conditions. See United States v. Eagle Thunder, 553 F.3d 605, 609 (8th Cir.2009) (holding that a revocation sentence above the advisory range was not substantively unreasonable when the defendant repeatedly violated his supervised-release conditions); United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 924 (8th Cir.2006) (affirming a statutory-maximum revocation sentence and noting that the court gave “excellent supporting reasons”).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the District Court. We also grant counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw, subject to counsel informing appellant about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition for certiorari. 
      
      . The Honorable M. Douglas Harpool, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.