Case Name: UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Terrence Lamar HAWKINS Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-08-04
Citations: 694 F. App'x 462
Docket Number: No. 17-1232
Parties: UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Terrence Lamar HAWKINS Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before COLLOTON, MURPHY, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 694
Pages: 462–463

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Terrence Lamar HAWKINS Defendant-Appellant
No. 17-1232
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: July 24, 2017
Filed: August 4, 2017
Lawrence E. Miller, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Missouri, Jefferson City, MO, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Terrence Lamar Hawkins, Pro Se
Before COLLOTON, MURPHY, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Terrence Hawkins brings this appeal after the district court revoked his supervised release on concurrent federal sentences that he was serving, and imposed concurrent revocation sentences of 10 months in prison and no additional supervised release.
For reversal, Hawkins challenges as unlawful a search during which a police officer found drugs in his pocket. This argument fails because Hawkins did not raise it below, and in any event, he did not allege harassment. See United States v. Charles, 531 F.3d 637, 640 (8th Cir. 2008) (assuming defendant did not waive Fourth Amendment argument by failing to raise it before district court, and holding that exclusionary rule does not apply in revocation of supervised release proceedings absent showing of harassment). Hawkins also argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable, but this argument fails as well. Reviewing for an abuse of discretion, see United States v. Growden, 663 F.3d 982, 984 (8th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (standard of review), we conclude that the sentence, which is within the advisory Guidelines revocation range, is not unreasonable, see United States v. Petreikis, 551 F.3d 822, 824 (8th Cir. 2009) (applying presumption of substantive reasonableness to revocation sentence within Guidelines range).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel's motion to withdraw.
. The Honorable Brian C. Wimes, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.