Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01244/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01244-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jeffrey S. Sauerbry
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1244

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Western District of Missouri.

*

Jeffrey S. Sauerbry, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 27, 2006

 Filed: October 31, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jeffrey Sauerbry appeals the 12-month prison sentence that the district court1

imposed after revoking his supervised release. For reversal, Sauerbry argues the

sentence was unreasonable because the court failed to consider the factors listed in 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a).

We conclude that the record reflects the district court considered the appropriate

factors, and that the revocation sentence was not unreasonable. See United States v.

Appellate Case: 06-1244 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/31/2006 Entry ID: 2105142
-2-

Nelson, 453 F.3d 1004, 1006 (8th Cir. 2006) (district court must consider advisory

sentencing range and policy statements found in Guidelines Chapter 7, and must also

consider § 3553(a) factors); United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 923 (8th Cir.

2006) (district court need not mechanically list every § 3553(a) consideration when

sentencing defendant upon revocation of supervised release); United States v. Tyson,

413 F.3d 824, 825 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (revocation sentences are reviewed for

unreasonableness in accordance with United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005));

United States v. White Face, 383 F.3d 733, 740 (8th Cir. 2004) (all that is required in

revocation sentencing is evidence that court has considered relevant matters and that

some reason be stated for its decision).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1244 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/31/2006 Entry ID: 2105142