Case Name: UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. Keith Brian CARTER, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-09-11
Citations: 240 F. App'x 161
Docket Number: No. 07-1769
Parties: UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. Keith Brian CARTER, Appellant.
Judges: Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 240
Pages: 161–162

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. Keith Brian CARTER, Appellant.
No. 07-1769.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 5, 2007.
Filed: Sept. 11, 2007.
William W. Mickle II, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Omaha, NE, for Appellee.
Karen M. Shanahan, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Omaha, NE, for Appellant.
Keith Brian Carter, Leavenworth, KS, pro se.
Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Keith Brian Carter appeals the sentence the district court imposed after revoking his supervised release. He also moves to supplement the record on appeal. We grant his motion and affirm the sentence.
In 1993 Carter was sentenced to 120 months in prison; his 8-year term of supervised release commenced in May 1999. At a March 2007 revocation hearing, Carter admitted violating conditions of his release. Subject to an advisory Guidelines range of 6-12 months in prison, Carter requested a sentence within that range with no further supervision. The court imposed a sentence of 12 months and 1 day in prison, followed by 5 years of supervised release.
We hold 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 district court properly considered relevant factors, including Carter's history and characteristics, the need for deterrence, and the advisory Guidelines range and other sentencing options. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), 3583(e); United States v. Nelson, 453 F.3d 1004, 1006 (8th Cir.2006) (in fashioning revocation sentence, district court is to consider advisory sentencing range and policy statements found in Chapter 7 of Guidelines, as well as certain additional § 3553(a) factors); United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 923 (8th Cir.2006) (district court need not list every § 3553(a) consideration when sentencing defendant upon revocation of supervised release).
Accordingly, we affirm.
. The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Nebraska.