Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02880/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02880-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Carl D. Edwards
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Nanette Laughrey, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2880

___________

United States of America, *

*

 Appellee, *

* Appeal From the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Carl D. Edwards, *

* [PUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 10, 2005

Filed: March 7, 2005

___________

Before SMITH, HEANEY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Carl D. Edwards brings this appeal following the revocation of his supervised

release. His attorney has filed a brief on his behalf pursuant to Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967), seeking to withdraw as counsel. Finding no nonfrivolous

issues, we affirm the district court’s1

 revocation of Edwards’s supervised release and

accompanying sentence and conditionally grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

Appellate Case: 04-2880 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/07/2005 Entry ID: 1875219 
-2-

Following the completion of his prison term for an armed bank robbery

conviction, Edwards was alleged to have violated the conditions of his supervised

release. On July 21, 2004, Edwards admitted to violating the terms of his release by

unlawfully using a controlled substance. The court then imposed a sentence of five

months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release.

Given Edwards’s admission of the violation, we find no clear error in the

district court’s findings of fact supporting the revocation and no abuse of discretion

in the decision to revoke Edwards’s supervised release. United States v. Carothers,

337 F.3d 1017, 1019 (8th Cir. 2003) (standard of review); see also 18 U.S.C. §

3583(e)(3) (empowering the district court to revoke a defendant’s supervised release

where the defendant violates a supervised release condition). 

Although the Supreme Court’s recent decision in United States v. Booker, 125

S. Ct. 738 (2005), significantly changed the state of federal sentencing, its effect on

sentences imposed for supervised release violations is far less dramatic. The United

States Sentencing Guidelines associated with supervised release violations were

considered advisory even before the Court’s decision in Booker. See United States

v. White Face, 383 F.3d 733, 738 (8th Cir. 2004) (recognizing that the policy

statements in Chapter 7 of the guidelines, relating to supervised release violations, are

advisory only). Thus, we find no error in the district court’s consultation of the

guidelines in determining Edwards’s sentence. Moreover, our review of the

guidelines associated with supervised release violations reveals that, given Edwards’s

criminal history and the nature of his violation, he received the lowest sentence

suggested by the guidelines. USSG §§ 7B1.1, p.s., 7B1.4, p.s. We cannot say that

in this instance such a sentence is unreasonable. Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 765

(announcing appellate standard of review for sentences imposed by the district court

requires a determination of the reasonableness of the sentence). We thus affirm the

Appellate Case: 04-2880 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/07/2005 Entry ID: 1875219 
-3-

district court and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw on the condition that Edwards

is advised of his right to petition the Supreme Court for certiorari.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2880 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/07/2005 Entry ID: 1875219