Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-20-01217/USCOURTS-ca8-20-01217-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Anthony Glass
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 20-1217

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Anthony Glass

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock

 ____________

 Submitted: June 9, 2020

Filed: June 12, 2020

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Anthony Glass appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed upon revoking

his supervised release. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed

1The Honorable Kristine G. Baker, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas.

Appellate Case: 20-1217 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/12/2020 Entry ID: 4923102
a brief, in which counsel argues that the district court failed to properly consider the

factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and improperly imposed a special condition

of supervised release recommending that Glass participate in a residential treatment

program. 

After careful review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not

err in sentencing Glass. The record reflects that the district court adequately

considered the factors set forth in section 3553(a), see United States v. Gray, 533 F.3d

942, 943, 945-46 (8th Cir. 2008); there is no indication that the district court

overlooked a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant

factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors, see

United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 915-16, 917 (8th Cir. 2009); and the sentence

is within the advisory sentencing guideline range, see United States v. Perkins, 526

F.3d 1107, 1110 (8th Cir. 2008), and below the statutory maximum, see 18 U.S.C.

§ 3583(e)(3), (h); 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C).

We further conclude that the district court did not plainly err in imposing the

unobjected-to special condition of supervised release recommending that Glass

participate in residential treatment, see United States v. Winston, 850 F.3d 377,

379-80 (8th Cir. 2017) (standard of review), as any error was not clear or obvious

under current law, see United States v. Conelly, 451 F.3d 942, 945 (8th Cir. 2006);

see also United States v. Demery, 674 F.3d 776, 783 (8th Cir. 2011).

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

______________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 20-1217 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/12/2020 Entry ID: 4923102