Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03362/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03362-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Robert E. Williams
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3362

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Robert E. Williams, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 21, 2008

Filed: February 26, 2008

___________

Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Robert E. Williams (Williams) appeals the 24-month sentence the district court1

imposed after revoking his supervised release. After carefully reviewing the record

and counsel’s brief, we affirm. 

We first conclude the district court did not clearly err in finding by a

preponderance of the evidence that Williams had violated the conditions of his

supervised release. See United States v. Carothers, 337 F.3d 1017, 1019 (8th Cir.

Appellate Case: 06-3362 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/26/2008 Entry ID: 3406324
-2-

2003) (stating the government’s burden of proof, and the clear-error review standard,

and finding the district court did not clearly err in concluding that defendant had

violated a condition of supervised release by committing assault, where the court

found the victim’s testimony credible and defendant’s testimony not credible); United

States v. Hernandez, 281 F.3d 746, 748 (8th Cir. 2002) (explaining the district court’s

witness credibility determinations are virtually unreviewable on appeal). 

We further conclude Williams’s sentence is not unreasonable because it is

within the applicable statutory maximum, see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (extablishing for

a Class C felony, the maximum term of imprisonment upon revocation of supervised

release is 2 years), and the sentence resulted from the district court’s consideration of

appropriate factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), see United States v. Nelson, 453 F.3d

1004, 1006 (8th Cir. 2006) (explaining an appellate court reviews a revocation

sentence to determine whether it is unreasonable in relation to, inter alia, § 3553(a)

factors and the advisory Guidelines range); United States v. Tyson, 413 F.3d 824, 825

(8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (declaring revocation sentences are reviewed for

unreasonableness in accordance with United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005)).

We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3362 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/26/2008 Entry ID: 3406324