Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01476/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01476-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jerry Ray Puckett
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1476

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Jerry Ray Puckett, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 5, 2006

Filed: January 20, 2006 

___________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jerry Ray Puckett pleaded guilty in March 2002 to being a felon in possession

of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (a Class C felony).

See 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2) (10-year maximum prison term for § 922(g)); 18 U.S.C.

§ 3559(a)(3) (offense classification). He was sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment

and 3 years’ supervised release, and began serving his supervised release in June

2004. The district court1

 later revoked supervised release – upon Puckett’s admission

Appellate Case: 05-1476 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/20/2006 Entry ID: 1999443
-2-

that he had violated certain release conditions – and imposed a new sentence of 6

months imprisonment and 2 years supervised release. Puckett appeals.

We affirm the district court’s decision to revoke Puckett’s supervised release.

See United States v. Edwards, 400 F.3d 591, 592 (8th Cir. 2005) (given defendant’s

admission that he had violated release conditions, there was no clear error in findings

of fact supporting revocation and no abuse of discretion in decision to revoke). We

also affirm the sentence the court imposed upon revocation. See United States v.

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

sentence was within authorized limits. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3583(e)(3), 3583(h), 3583

(b)(2). The hearing transcript shows that the district court considered the appropriate

factors and imposed a sentence that was not unreasonable, and, in fact, was below the

advisory range under the revocation guideline. See United States v. Booker, 125 S.

Ct. 738, 764-66 (2005) (sentencing courts must consider 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors);

Tyson, 413 F.3d at 825-26.

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

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1476 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/20/2006 Entry ID: 1999443