Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03380/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03380-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Phillip Nelson Suddarth
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

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. 04-3380

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Phillip Nelson Suddarth, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: July 22, 2005

 Filed: July 26, 2005

___________

Before MELLOY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Phillip Suddarth appeals the district court’s1

 revocation of his probation and

imposition of a term of imprisonment. We affirm.

Suddarth pleaded guilty to making a false statement, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 1001(a)(2), and was sentenced to 3 years probation. The district court later revoked

probation and sentenced Suddarth to 6 months in prison and 2 years supervised

release, after finding that Suddarth had violated the terms of his probation. On

Appellate Case: 04-3380 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/26/2005 Entry ID: 1932607
-2-

appeal, counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the court should have ordered a drug

treatment program rather than to revoke probation and impose a period of

incarceration.

The argument in the Anders brief fails. We find no abuse of discretion in the

district court’s decision to revoke probation. See United States v. Leigh, 276 F.3d

1011, 1012 (8th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (standard of review). At the revocation

hearing, Suddarth admitted that he had violated the terms of his probation, see United

States v. Young, 756 F.2d 64, 65 (8th Cir. 1985), and there is nothing in the record

to suggest the court felt bound to revoke probation rather than to order additional

drug treatment, see U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4, p.s., comment. (n.6). Further, the sentence

imposed was within the advisory range suggested by the Sentencing Guidelines. See

18 U.S.C. §§ 3565(a)(2), 3553(a). 

Having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we

find no nonfrivolous issues. 

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

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3380 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/26/2005 Entry ID: 1932607