United States v. Veronica Perales , 351 F. App'x 157 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 08-3050
    ___________
    United States of America,               *
    *
    Appellee,                  *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                                * District Court for the
    * District of Nebraska.
    Veronica Perales, also known            *
    as Veronica Ramirez,                    * [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Appellant.                 *
    ___________
    Submitted: October 27, 2009
    Filed: November 9, 2009
    ___________
    Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Veronica Perales appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed upon revoking
    her supervised release, arguing that the sentence should have been more lenient, and
    that the court abused its discretion and failed properly to consider the 18 U.S.C.
    § 3553(a) sentencing factors. Upon careful review, we conclude that the revocation
    sentence was not unreasonable. See United States v. Tyson, 
    413 F.3d 824
    , 825 (8th
    Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (standard of review). The sentence is within the statutory
    1
    The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District
    of Nebraska.
    limits of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). Furthermore, contrary to Perales’s argument, the
    court explicitly considered multiple relevant section 3553(a) factors, including
    Perales’s violations of supervised release, the high risk that she would commit new
    felonious conduct, the prior sentencing leniency given to her, and the need for
    substance abuse treatment that best could be provided in prison. Cf. United States v.
    Larison, 
    432 F.3d 921
    , 922-24 (8th Cir. 2006) (record must show that court
    considered relevant matters and stated reason for its decision; no error in imposing 60-
    month sentence that exceeded Guidelines recommended range of 5-11 months, where
    sentence was within statutory maximum, court expressed grave concern over
    defendant’s numerous and repeated violations of supervised release and inability to
    complete drug treatment programs, and defendant persisted in criminal conduct
    despite many chances afforded by probation office).
    Accordingly, we affirm.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-3050

Citation Numbers: 351 F. App'x 157

Filed Date: 11/9/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023