United States v. York Wilson ( 2016 )

  •                  United States Court of Appeals
                                 For the Eighth Circuit
                                     No. 16-2010
                                  United States of America
                            lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
                                     York Omar Wilson
                           lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
                         Appeal from United States District Court
                    for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
                              Submitted: November 29, 2016
                                 Filed: December 1, 2016
    Before SHEPHERD, ARNOLD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
          York Wilson appeals the district court’s1 order revoking his supervised release
    and imposing a 24-month sentence. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed
           The Honorable Dean Whipple, United States District Judge for the Western
    District of Missouri.
    a brief under Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), arguing that the alleged
    violation was not established by a preponderance of the evidence, and that the district
    court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence.
            We conclude the district court did not clearly err in finding that Wilson
    violated his supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (court may revoke
    supervised release if it finds by preponderance of evidence that defendant violated
    conditions of supervised release); United States v. Perkins, 
    526 F.3d 1107
    , 1109 (8th
    Cir. 2008) (fact-finding as to whether violation occurred is reviewed for clear error);
    United States v. Carothers, 
    337 F.3d 1017
    , 1019 (8th Cir. 2003) (credibility
    determinations are exclusive domain of the sentencing judge, and are virtually
    unreviewable on appeal). We also conclude the district court did not abuse its
    discretion in sentencing Wilson, as it imposed the sentence after properly considering
    the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Miller, 
    557 F.3d 910
    , 917 (8th
    Cir. 2009) (under substantive-reasonableness test, district court abuses its discretion
    if it fails to consider relevant § 3553(a) factor, gives significant weight to improper
    or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment in weighing factors); United
    States v. Merrival, 
    521 F.3d 889
    , 890 (8th Cir. 2008) (substantive reasonableness of
    revocation sentence is reviewed under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard).
          Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.