Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-14-02690/USCOURTS-ca8-14-02690-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lowell Duane Johnson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-2690

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Lowell Duane Johnson

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa - Sioux City

____________

 Submitted: January 14, 2015

Filed: January 20, 2015

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Lowell Johnson directly appeals following the district court’s revocation of 1

his supervised release. For reversal, he argues that the court (1) erred in finding that

The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for the

1

Northern District of Iowa.

Appellate Case: 14-2690 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/20/2015 Entry ID: 4235487 
he violated his release conditions, and (2) imposed an unreasonable revocation

sentence.

We conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in revoking supervised

release, given the court’s finding that Johnson had violated multiple release

conditions, based both on Johnson’s admissions and the testimony of his probation

officer, which the court was entitled to credit. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3); United

States v. Carothers, 337 F.3d 1017, 1019 (8th Cir. 2003) (standard of review; court’s

credibility determinations atrevocation hearing are virtuallyunreviewable on appeal).

We also conclude that the court did not impose an unreasonable sentence. The court

carefully explained its sentencing decision, commenting on Johnson’s repeated

violations of his release conditions, the seriousness of the violations, his lack of

candor with his probation officer, and other relevant matters. See United States v.

Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 915-16 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review); United States v.

Thunder, 553 F.3d 605, 608-09 (8th Cir. 2009) (revocation sentence above advisory

range was not substantively unreasonable where defendant repeatedly violated

supervised release); United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 924 (8th Cir. 2006)

(affirming statutory maximum revocation sentence where district court justified

decision by giving supporting reasons).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We also grant

counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw.

______________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 14-2690 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/20/2015 Entry ID: 4235487