Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01134/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01134-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
George D. Leisure
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1134

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff-Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

George D. Leisure, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendant-Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 13, 2004

Filed: February 10, 2005

___________

Before RILEY, LAY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

This case was submitted to the court pursuant to Anders v. State of California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967). The issue on the merits related to whether the district court

abused its discretion in finding that Defendant Leisure violated several conditions of

supervised release, revoking the Defendant’s supervised release, and imposing a term

of incarceration of ten months and twenty-six months of supervised release, pursuant

to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). 

We affirm the district court’s decision in this matter. Section 3583(e) clearly

grants the district court the authority to find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that

Appellate Case: 04-1134 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/10/2005 Entry ID: 1866013 
-2-

the Defendant violated a condition of supervised release. Eighth Circuit precedent

affords district courts broad discretion when applying this statute; the decision of the

district court will not be questioned so long as its decision conforms to statutory

limits. See United States v. Oliver, 931 F.2d 463, 465 (8th Cir. 1991); United States

v. Smeathers, 930 F.2d 18, 19 (8th Cir. 1991). 

Nor does this case raise any issues under Blakely v. Washington, 124 S.Ct.

2531 (2004), as a convicted felon does not have a Sixth Amendment right to have a

jury determine those facts legally relevant to revocation of supervised release. Upon

revocation of supervised release, a district court is expressly empowered to “impose

a term of imprisonment equal in length to the entire original term of supervision. . . .

includ[ing] the lesser power to impose a punishment that combines, over that same

period, prison and supervised release.” United States v. Love, 19 F.3d 415, 416 (8th

Cir. 1994); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). Since the district court imposed a

sentence equal in time to Mr. Leisure’s original three-year term of supervised release,

it clearly acted with appropriate discretion. 

The decision of the district court is AFFIRMED. As this case raises no issues

related to the constitutionality of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, no further

briefing is requested from the parties. Defense counsel’s request for leave to

withdraw from further representation of the Defendant is also GRANTED, subject to

the condition that counsel advises Leisure of his right to file a petition for certiorari.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1134 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/10/2005 Entry ID: 1866013