UNITED STATES v. KENT (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.2021-09-17No. No. 21-1885

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the sentence was substantively reasonable because the district court adequately considered the required sentencing factors, avoided relying on improper considerations, and did not commit a clear error of judgment.

Jerome Davis Kent challenged a 7-month sentence (imposed after credit for time served reduced an initial 16-month term) for violating the conditions of his supervised release. Kent argued the sentence was excessive. The appellate court reviewed whether the district court abused its discretion in imposing the sentence and whether it properly considered the statutory sentencing factors required by federal law.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Reasonableness of a revocation sentence for supervised release violation
Whether the district court properly applied statutory sentencing factors
Whether the court relied on improper factors in sentencing

Procedural posture

Kent appealed his supervised release revocation sentence to the circuit court.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

[Unpublished]

Jerome Davis Kent appeals a 16-month sentence he received for violating the conditions of supervised release. Although the sentence was reduced to 7 months after the district court

credited him with time served, he still says it is too long.

We conclude that the sentence is substantively reasonable. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 917 (8th Cir. 2009) (reviewing the reasonableness of a revocation sentence for an abuse of discretion); United States v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107, 1110 (8th Cir. 2008) (stating that a within-Guidelines-range sentence is presumptively reasonable). The record establishes that the district court sufficiently considered the statutory sentencing factors, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(e)(3), and did not rely on an improper factor or commit a clear error of judgment. See United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 923-24 (8th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and grant counsel permission to withdraw. FOOTNOTES

. The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota.

PER CURIAM.