Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Charles Leopole ELLIS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-07-05
Citations: 512 F. App'x 657
Docket Number: No. 13-1100
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Charles Leopole ELLIS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 512
Pages: 657–658

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Charles Leopole ELLIS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-1100.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: July 1, 2013.
Filed: July 5, 2013.
William L. Meiners, Asst. U.S. Atty., Kansas City, MO, for appellee.
Stephen C. Moss, Asst. Fed. Public Defender, Kansas City, MO (Raymond C. Conrad, Jr., Fed. Public Defender, on the brief), for Defendant-Appellant.
Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Charles Ellis directly appeals the district court's modification of the conditions of his supervised release. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), questioning the district court's authority to modify Ellis's conditions of supervised release without a finding that Ellis had committed a violation.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court acted within its authority. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) (court may order condition to extent that such condition, inter alia, is reasonably related to history and characteristics of defendant, and involves no greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct, to protect public from further crimes of defendant, and to provide defendant with needed medical care or other correctional treatment in most effective manner); cf. United States v. Davies, 380 F.3d 329, 332 (8th Cir.2004) (district court may modify conditions imposed on supervised-release term even when modification is based only on evidence that was available at original sentencing; statute that authorizes district courts to modify conditions of supervised release does not require new evidence, nor even changed circumstances in defendant's life). Furthermore, having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues.
Accordingly, we grant counsel's motion to withdraw, and we affirm.
. The Honorable Howard F. Sachs, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.