Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03272/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03272-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Anthony Nelson Dean
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Northern District of Iowa. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-3272

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Northern

v. * District of Iowa.

*

Anthony Nelson Dean, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 16, 2010

Filed: February 23, 2010

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

While Anthony Dean Nelson was serving a period of supervised release, the

district court1

 revoked supervision and sentenced Dean to 11 months in prison and 14

months of additional supervised release. For reversal, Dean argues that the revocation

sentence is unreasonable. Because he has not rebutted the presumption that his

within-Guidelines-range revocation sentence is reasonable, see United States v.

Petreikis, 551 F.3d 822, 824 (8th Cir. 2009), we affirm.

Appellate Case: 09-3272 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/23/2010 Entry ID: 3636926
-2-

In particular, we note that the sentence is within statutory limits, see 18 U.S.C.

§ 3583(b)(2), (e)(3), (h); and that the court considered proper factors under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a), including the Guidelines range, Dean’s poor history on supervised release,

his drug and alcohol abuse, the lack of remaining available community programs, and

his need for a residential-reentry program and participation in an alcohol-testing

program upon release from prison. See United States v. Nelson, 453 F.3d 1004, 1006

(8th Cir. 2006) (appellate court reviews revocation sentence to determine whether it

is unreasonable in relation to, inter alia, advisory Guidelines range and applicable

§ 3553(a) factors). 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-3272 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/23/2010 Entry ID: 3636926