Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01906/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01906-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Daryel Oliver
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1906

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Daryel Oliver, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 13, 2007

Filed: December 21, 2007

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Daryel Oliver--proceeding pro se upon his own motion, but with courtappointed standby counsel--appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed after

revoking his supervised release. We hold that the district court did not clearly err in

finding that Oliver had violated the conditions of his supervised release, and thus we

conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in revoking his supervised release.

See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (permitting revocation of supervised release if court finds

by preponderance of evidence that defendant violated condition of supervised release);

Appellate Case: 06-1906 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/21/2007 Entry ID: 3385057
-2-

United States v. Edwards, 400 F.3d 591, 592 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (given

defendant’s admission of violation of supervised-release condition, concluding that

district court did not clearly err in its factual findings supporting revocation and did

not abuse its discretion in deciding to revoke supervised release).

We further hold that Oliver’s 33-month prison sentence is reasonable, as it is

below the applicable statutory maximum and within the advisory Guidelines range,

and it resulted from the district court’s consideration of the appropriate statutory

factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3); United States v. Nelson, 453 F.3d 1004, 1006 (8th

Cir. 2006); United States v. Tyson, 413 F.3d 824, 825-26 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam).

As to the remaining issues properly presented on appeal, we conclude that none were

preserved in the district court, and thus our review is for plain error only. See Fed. R.

Crim. P. 52(b). Upon such review, we find no basis for reversal. The district court

did not plainly err in declining to give Oliver credit toward his revocation sentence for

time that was credited against a state-court sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b);

Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694, 700-01 (2000). The district court did not

plainly err in fashioning new conditions of supervised-release. See U.S.S.G.

§ 5D1.3(b); United States v. Henkel, 358 F.3d 1013, 1015 (8th Cir. 2004). And the

record does not support a finding of governmental misconduct in connection with the

revocation of supervised release or the resulting sentence.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed, and Oliver’s

motions for appointment of new standby counsel are denied.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1906 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/21/2007 Entry ID: 3385057