Case ID: f-appx_388/html/0562-01.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. DeAngelo SINGLETARY, Appellant.
    No. 10-1729.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: Aug. 5, 2010.
    Filed: Aug. 6, 2010.
    Jeffrey Paul Lavicka, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Little Rock, AR, for Appellee.
    Deangelo Singletary Sherwood, AR, Chris Tarver, Assistant, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Little Rock, AR, for Appellant.
    Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

DeAngelo Singletary appeals following the district court’s order revoking his supervised release and imposing a revocation sentence of 11 months in prison. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking supervised release, see United States v. Edwards, 400 F.3d 591, 592 (8th Cir.2005) (per curiam); and we also conclude that the revocation sentence is not unreasonable, see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3), because the court properly considered relevant sentencing factors, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1) (considerations include history and characteristics of defendant), (a)(2)(D) (need to provide treatment in most effective manner), (a)(4)(B) (applicable Guidelines policy statements); see also United States v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107, 1110 (8th Cir.2008) (specific findings on § 3553(a) factors are not needed; all generally required is evidence that district court was aware of relevant factors).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. 
      
      . The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.