Case Name: UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Carvell Seman ENGLAND Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-08-11
Citations: 695 F. App'x 176
Docket Number: No. 16-4553
Parties: UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Carvell Seman ENGLAND Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 695
Pages: 176–177

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Carvell Seman ENGLAND Defendant-Appellant
No. 16-4553
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: August 10, 2017
Filed: August 11, 2017
Ajay J. Alexander, Shawn Wehde, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Iowa, Sioux City, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Carvell Seman England, Pro Se
Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
While Carvell Seman England was serving a third term of federal supervised release, the district court revoked supervised release and sentenced him to 18 months in prison and no additional supervised release. On appeal, England challenges the revocation sentence as substantively unreasonable. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.
Although the sentence is above the advisory range contained in the Guidelines Chapter 7 policy statements, it is well within statutory limits. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (maximum revocation prison term is five years if underlying offense is Class A felony; three years if. underlying offense is Class B felony). The district court thoroughly explained its reasons for varying upward, including England's history of repeated violations, his failure to appear at the original revocation hearing, and the need to adequately deter him from further criminal conduct despite imposing no further term of supervised release. See id. (before revoking supervised release and imposing sentence, court must consider specified factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including history and characteristics of defendant, and need to deter criminal conduct); United States v. Growden, 663 F.3d 982, 984 (8th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (court acted well within broad discretion in imposing above-Guidelines revocation sentence where it considered appropriate § 3553(a) factors, sufficiently explained reasoning for variance, and imposed sentence within statutory limits).
The judgment is affirmed, and counsel's motion to withdraw is granted.
. The Honorable Leonard T, Strand, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.