Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-10-01552/USCOURTS-ca8-10-01552-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Anthony Gentile
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-1552

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Missouri.

Anthony Gentile, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: August 3, 2010

Filed: August 6, 2010

___________

Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

While Anthony Gentile was serving a term of supervised release, he admitted

violating certain supervised release conditions. The district court1

 revoked supervised

release and imposed a sentence consisting of both imprisonment and additional

supervised release. On appeal, Gentile argues that the imposition of additional

supervised release is unreasonable and does not reflect proper consideration of the 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, and that the parties agreed only to a prison term.

Appellate Case: 10-1552 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/06/2010 Entry ID: 3691009
2

To the extent Gentile is arguing in his pro se brief that counsel rendered

ineffective assistance, we decline to consider any such claim in this direct appeal. See

United States v. Hughes, 330 F.3d 1068, 1069 (8th Cir. 2003).

-2-

Even assuming (without deciding) that the court’s sentence was inconsistent

with the parties’ sentencing recommendation, the court was not bound by the

recommendation; and upon careful review, we conclude 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 sentence is within statutory limits and accords

with the Sentencing Guidelines, see United States v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107, 1110

(8th Cir. 2008) (revocation sentence within Guidelines range is accorded presumption

of substantive reasonableness on appeal); and the record reflects that the district court

considered and applied appropriate section 3553(a) sentencing factors, see id. (district

court need not make specific findings).2

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment, and we grant counsel’s

request for leave to withdraw, subject to counsel informing Gentile about procedures

for seeking rehearing and filing a petition for certiorari.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 10-1552 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/06/2010 Entry ID: 3691009