Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Jerry Ray PUCKETT, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-01-20
Citations: 163 F. App'x 430
Docket Number: No. 05-1476
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Jerry Ray PUCKETT, Appellant.
Judges: Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 163
Pages: 430–431

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Jerry Ray PUCKETT, Appellant.
No. 05-1476.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 5, 2006.
Decided Jan. 20, 2006.
David Christopher Jones, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Springfield, MO, for Appellee.
Ann M. Koszuth, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Springfield, MO, for Appellant.
Jerry Ray Puckett, Leavenworth, KS, pro se.
Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Jerry Ray Puckett pleaded guilty in March 2002 to being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (a Class C felony). See 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2) (10-year maximum prison term for § 922(g)); 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a)(3) (offense classification). He was sentenced to 30 months' imprisonment and 3 years' supervised release, and began serving his supervised release in June 2004. The district court later revoked supervised release — upon Puckett's admission that he had violated certain release conditions — and imposed a new sentence of 6 months imprisonment and 2 years supervised release. Puckett appeals.
We affirm the district court's decision to revoke Puckett's supervised release. See United States v. Edwards, 400 F.3d 591, 592 (8th Cir.2005) (given defendant's admission that he had violated release conditions, there was no clear error in findings of fact supporting revocation and no abuse of discretion in decision to revoke). We also affirm the sentence the court imposed upon revocation. See United States v. Tyson, 413 F.3d 824, 825 (8th Cir.2005) (per curiam) (standard of review). The sentence was within authorized limits. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3), 3583(h), 3583(b)(2). The hearing transcript shows that the district court considered the appropriate factors and imposed a sentence that was not unreasonable, and, in fact, was below the advisory range under the revocation guideline. See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 764-66, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005) (sentencing courts must consider 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors); Tyson, 413 F.3d at 825-26.
Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel's motion to withdraw.
. The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.