Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03997/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03997-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Clyde E. Hedger
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3997

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Clyde E. Hedger, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 30, 2005

Filed: October 12, 2005 

___________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Clyde Hedger appeals following the district court’s1

 revocation of his

supervised release and imposition of a sentence of 10 months in prison and 4 months

supervised release. On appeal, Hedger argues that (1) the district court erred in

revoking his supervised release based on its determination that Hedger assaulted a

nursing center employee; and (2) he should have been sentenced only to his time

served of 2 months. We reject these arguments and affirm.

Appellate Case: 04-3997 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/12/2005 Entry ID: 1962093
-2-

The testimony of the government’s witnesses, which the district court was

entitled to credit, amply supports the finding that Hedger violated his supervised

release by assaulting a nursing home employee. See United States v. Carothers, 337

F.3d 1017, 1019 (8th Cir. 2003) (credibility determinations by district court during

supervised release revocation hearing are virtually unreviewable on appeal). Further,

both the prison term and the supervised release term were within authorized limits,

and the district court considered appropriate factors in imposing the revocation

sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (permitting imposition of revocation sentence

after consideration of factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); authorizing up to 2 years

imprisonment upon revocation of supervised release where original offense was Class

C felony), (h) (authorizing new period of supervised release not to exceed maximum

term of supervised release for original offense, less any prison time imposed upon

revocation of supervised release). Thus, we conclude that Hedger’s sentence is not

unreasonable. See United States v. Tyson, 413 F.3d 824, 825-26 (8th Cir. 2005) (per

curiam) (standard of review). 

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

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3997 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/12/2005 Entry ID: 1962093