Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01769/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01769-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Keith Brian Carter
Appellant
United States
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-1769

___________

United States, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Keith Brian Carter, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 5, 2007

 Filed: September 11, 2007

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Keith Brian Carter appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed after

revoking his supervised release. He also moves to supplement the record on appeal.

We grant his motion and affirm the sentence.

In 1993 Carter was sentenced to 120 months in prison; his 8-year term of

supervised release commenced in May 1999. At a March 2007 revocation hearing,

Carter admitted violating conditions of his release. Subject to an advisory Guidelines

Appellate Case: 07-1769 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/11/2007 Entry ID: 3350305
-2-

range of 6-12 months in prison, Carter requested a sentence within that range with no

further supervision. The court imposed a sentence of 12 months and 1 day in prison,

followed by 5 years of supervised release. 

We hold that the revocation sentence is not unreasonable. See United States v.

Tyson, 413 F.3d 824, 825 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (standard of review). The

district court properly considered relevant factors, including Carter’s history and

characteristics, the need for deterrence, and the advisory Guidelines range and other

sentencing options. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(c); United States v. Nelson, 453

F.3d 1004, 1006 (8th Cir. 2006) (in fashioning revocation sentence, district court is

to consider advisory sentencing range and policy statements found in Chapter 7 of

Guidelines, as well as certain additional § 3553(a) factors); United States v. Larison,

432 F.3d 921, 923 (8th Cir. 2006) (district court need not list every § 3553(a)

consideration when sentencing defendant upon revocation of supervised release).

Accordingly, we affirm. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-1769 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/11/2007 Entry ID: 3350305