Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-19-03441/USCOURTS-ca8-19-03441-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ramius Hardiman
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 19-3441

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Ramius Hardiman

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids

 ____________

 Submitted: March 24, 2020

Filed: March 30, 2020

[Unpublished]

____________

Before GRUENDER, BEAM, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 19-3441 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/30/2020 Entry ID: 4896700
Ramius Hardiman challenges the district court’s1

 imposition of a Residential

Reentry Center (RRC) special condition of supervised release, after he pleaded guilty

to an escape charge. His counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the RRC condition, and has moved to withdraw.

After careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its wide

discretion in imposing the RRC condition. See United States v. Wiedower, 634 F.3d

490, 493 (8th Cir. 2011) (explaining the standard of review); see also 18 U.S.C. §

3583(d) (stating that a court may order a special release condition that is reasonably

related to § 3553 factors, involves no greater deprivation of liberty than reasonably

necessary, and is consistent with policy statements); United States v. Melton, 666

F.3d 513, 517-18 (8th Cir. 2012) (concluding that requiring a defendant to

temporarily reside at a RRC is expressly authorized by 18 U.S.C. § 3563(b)(11) and

U.S.S.G. § 5B1.3(e)(1), and has been regularly upheld as a reasonable condition of

supervised release; and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing

a RRC condition solely because the defendant failed to succeed there in the past). 

Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988),

we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. 

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is

granted. 

______________________________

1The Honorable C.J. Williams, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Mark A.

Roberts, United States Magistrate Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.

-2-

Appellate Case: 19-3441 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/30/2020 Entry ID: 4896700