Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03968/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03968-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Todd Brave Crow
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Charles B. Kornmann, United States District Judge for the

District of South Dakota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3968

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of South Dakota.

Todd Brave Crow, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 19, 2006

Filed: October 20, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Todd Brave Crow pleaded guilty to assault resulting in serious bodily injury,

and was sentenced to 33 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release. After

Brave Crow began serving his supervised release, the probation officer petitioned for

revocation, alleging that Brave Crow had violated his release conditions. Brave Crow

admitted violating the conditions of his supervised release as alleged. At a

subsequent revocation hearing, the district court1

 revoked supervised release and

imposed a new sentence of 24 months in prison, commenting on the Chapter 7

Appellate Case: 05-3968 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/20/2006 Entry ID: 2101541
-2-

Guidelines recommended range, Brave Crow’s prior and current supervised release

violations, and his failure to pay restitution, and also noting that due to his record

leniency was not appropriate. Brave Crow appeals his revocation sentence.

The revocation sentence was within authorized limits, and the district court

considered appropriate factors in imposing it. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(e)(3).

We conclude that Brave Crow’s sentence is not unreasonable. See United States v.

Tyson, 413 F.3d 824, 825 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (revocation sentences are

reviewed for unreasonableness in accordance with United States v. Booker, 543 U.S.

220 (2005)). 

Accordingly, we affirm. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3968 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/20/2006 Entry ID: 2101541