United States v. Larry Graves, A/K/A Larry Grayes, 914 F.2d 159 (8th Cir. 1990). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Larry Graves, A/K/A Larry Grayes, 914 F.2d 159 (8th Cir. 1990). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
42 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Jason Robert Zeimes (ca8, 2014-04-29)
Treatment trajectory · 1991 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1991 2008 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 35 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Jason Robert Zeimes
8th Cir. · 2014 · confidence medium
Evidence that the district court was aware of the relevant § 3553(a) factors required to be considered is sufficient.” United States v. Franklin, 397 F.3d 604, 606-07 (8th Cir.2005) (footnote omitted), quoting United States v. Graves, 914 F.2d 159, 160 (8th Cir.1990).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Mark Oxley
8th Cir. · 2012 · confidence medium
Although the district court must consider the factors set forth in § 3553(a), “there is no requirement that the district court make specific findings relating to each of the factors considered.” United States v. Franklin, 397 F.3d 604, 606 (8th Cir.2005) (quoting United States v. Graves, 914 F.2d 159, 160 (8th Cir.1990) (per curiam)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Shawn A. Hungate
8th Cir. · 2005 · confidence medium
The district court need not “make specific findings relating to each of the factors considered.” United States v. Graves, 914 F.2d 159, 160 (8th Cir.1990).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Johnny Franklin, Jr.
8th Cir. · 2005 · confidence medium
Although the district court is required to consider certain factors set forth in § 3553(a) in a supervised-release-revocation sentencing,3 “there is no requirement that the district court make specific findings relating to each of the factors considered.” United States v. Graves, 914 F.2d 159, 160 (8th Cir. 1990); see White Face, 383 F.3d at 740 (noting that “[a] district court need not mechanically list every § 3553(a) consideration when sentencing a defendant upon revocation of supervised release”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Rhonda Smith
8th Cir. · 2004 · confidence medium
We conclude the district court gave thorough consideration to the sentencing factors, including the recommended sentencing range, see United States v. Graves, 914 F.2d 159, 160 (8th Cir.1990) (per curiam), and was not bound to follow section 7B1.4’s sentencing recommendation, see United States v. Touche, 323 F.3d 1105, 1107 (8th Cir.2003).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Calvin James
8th Cir. · 2001 · confidence medium
While 18 U.S.C. § 3583 (e) requires the court to consider certain factors in imposing a revocation sentence, the court is not required to make specific findings relating to each of the factors, see United States v. Graves, 914 F.2d 159, 160 (8th Cir.1990) (per curiam), nor is it required to state on the record that it has considered the factors or to explain its reasons for the sentence imposed, see United States v. Caves, 73 F.3d 823, 825 (8th Cir.1996) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. James W. Reed
8th Cir. · 2000 · confidence medium
The court was required neither to make specific findings relating to each of the factors, see United States v. Graves, 914 F.2d 159, 160 (8th Cir. 1990) (per -2- curiam), nor to state on the record that it had considered the factors or explain its reasons for the sentence imposed, see United States v. Caves, 73 F.3d 823, 825 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. John Lars Person
8th Cir. · 2000 · confidence medium
The court is not required to make specific findings relating to each of the factors, however, see United States v. Graves, 914 F.2d 159, 160 (8th Cir. 1990) (per curiam), nor is it required to state on the record that it has considered the factors or explain its reasons for the sentence imposed, see United States v. Caves, 73 F.3d 823, 825 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam), and we are satisfied that the court adequately weighed the relevant factors.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Michael Genetten
8th Cir. · 1998 · confidence medium
In determining an appropriate revocation sentence, a district court should consider the factors listed in section 3553(a), see 18 U.S.C. § 3565 (a), but it need not make specific findings relating to every factor it considers, see United States v. Graves, 914 F.2d 159, 160 (8th Cir. 1990) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Michael A. Hale
7th Cir. · 1997 · confidence medium
E.g., United States v. LaBonte, 70 F.3d 1396, 1411-12 (1st Cir.1995), cert. granted on other grounds, — U.S.—, 116 S.Ct. 2545 , 135 L.Ed.2d 1066 (1996); Blackston, 940 F.2d at 893-94 ; United States v. Graves, 914 F.2d 159, 160 (8th Cir.1990) (per curiam); United States v. Lee, 957 F.2d 770, 774-75 (10th Cir.1992).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. John Lawrence Drennan, Jr.
8th Cir. · 1996 · confidence medium
See United States v. Smeathers, 930 F.2d 18, 18-19 (8th Cir.1991) (per curiam); United States v. Graves, 914 F.2d 159, 161 (8th Cir.1990) (per curiam). 3 In accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we have reviewed the record and have found no other nonfrivolous issues for appeal. 4 Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 1 The Honorable Elsijane Trimble Roy, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. John L. Drennan, Jr.
8th Cir. · 1996 · confidence medium
See United States v. Smeathers, 930 F.2 d 18, 18-19 (8th Cir. 1991) (per curiam); United States v. Graves, 914 F.2d 159, 161 (8th Cir. 1990) (per curiam).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Michael J. Carr
8th Cir. · 1995 · confidence medium
United States v. Graves, 914 F.2d 159, 161 (8th Cir.1990) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. William McGee
7th Cir. · 1995 · confidence medium
Review of a sentence for which there is no binding sentencing guideline is limited to the standard of “plainly unreasonable.” 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (a)(4); see United States v. Webb, 30 F.3d 687, 689 (6th Cir.1994); United States v. Graves, 914 F.2d 159, 160-61 (8th Cir.1990).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. James Grimes
8th Cir. · 1995 · confidence medium
A sentence imposed within the lirnits of § 3583(e) will not be disturbed “absent an abuse of discretion.” United States v. Graves, 914 F.2d 159, 161 (8th Cir.1990).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Elvis E. Webb (2×)
6th Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
See 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (a)(4); United States v. Graves, 914 F.2d 159, 160-61 (8th Cir.1990).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Richard Rene Clark
4th Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
Ramos-Santiago v. United States, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 129 , 116 L.Ed.2d 96 (1991); United States v. Kindred, 918 F.2d 485 , 487 n. 3, 488 (5th Cir.1990) (“Knowing use of drugs is akin to possession” and “§ 3583(g) mandated the revocation ... [of supervised release due to defendant’s] drug use”); United States v. Dillard, 910 F.2d 461 , 464 n. 3 (7th Cir.1990) (“Knowing use of cocaine ... requires possession, even if only momentarily”); United States v. Graves, 914 F.2d 159, 161 (8th Cir.1990) (equating use with possession).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Tony Lawrence Dubray
8th Cir. · 1993 · confidence medium
United States v. Graves, 914 F.2d 159, 161 (8th Cir. 1990) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Timothy Tyrone Rockwell
10th Cir. · 1993 · confidence medium
See United States v. Courtney, 979 F.2d 45, 49 (5th Cir.1992) (“[U]nder the present statutory scheme for criminal offenses, use is subsumed within possession.”); United States v. Smith, 978 F.2d 181, 182 (5th Cir.1992) (admitted use of contraband substance can be evidence of possession for purposes of § 3583(g)); United States v. Baclaan, 948 F.2d 628, 630 (9th Cir.1991) (“possession,” within the meaning of § 3583(g), was properly determined based on positive urine tests for methamphetamines) (citing Blackston, 940 F.2d at 891 ; United States v. Oliver, 931 F.2d 463, 464-65 (8th Cir.…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Dane Clark Courtney
5th Cir. · 1992 · confidence medium
See, United *49 States v. Dillard, 910 F.2d 461, 464 (7th Cir.1990); United States v. Graves, 914 F.2d 159, 161 (8th Cir.1990); United States v. Kindred, 918 F.2d 485 , 487 n. 3 (5th Cir.1990); United States v. Ramos-Santiago, 925 F.2d 15, 16 (1st Cir.1991).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) U.S. v. Courtney
5th Cir. · 1992 · confidence medium
See, United States v. Dillard, 910 F.2d 461, 464 (7th Cir. 1990); United States v. Graves, 914 F.2d 159, 161 (8th Cir. 1990); United States v. Kindred, 918 F.2d 485 , 487 n. 3 (5th Cir. 1990); United States v. Ramos-Santiago, 925 F.2d 15, 16 (1st Cir. 1991).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Troy Lee Brooks
10th Cir. · 1992 · confidence medium
In Lee , we observed: While ‘there is no requirement that the district court make specific findings relating to each of the factors considered,’ United States v. Graves, 914 F.2d 159, 160 (8th Cir.1990), the sentencing court should state its reasons for its action.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Jimmy Dale Lee
10th Cir. · 1992 · confidence medium
While “there is no requirement that the district court make *775 specific findings relating to each of the factors considered,” United States v. Graves, 914 F.2d 159, 160 (8th Cir.1990), the sentencing court should state the reasons for its action.
examined Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Theophilus Blackston (4×) also: Cited "see"
3rd Cir. · 1991 · confidence medium
The court following Dillard said "knowing use of drugs is akin to possession.") See also, United States v. Graves, 914 F.2d 159, 161 (8th Cir.1990) (drug use equivalent to possession.)
cited Cited "see" United States v. Christopher Funchess
8th Cir. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
Melton, 666 F.3d at 516 ; see United States v. Graves, 914 F.2d 159 , 160–61 (8th Cir. 1990) (per curiam) (affirming a revocation sentence after a defendant missed drug-testing appointments).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Robinson
3rd Cir. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Graves, 914 F.2d 159, 160 (8th Cir.1990). *76 At the time of sentencing, the district court simply must state on the record its general reasons under section 3558(a) for rejecting the Chapter 7 policy statements and for imposing a more stringent sentence.
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Peter Simone
8th Cir. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Graves, 914 F.2d 159, 160-61 (8th Cir. 1990) (per curiam) (standard of review; there is no requirement that district court make specific findings relating to each of § 3553(a) factors considered); United States v. Caves, 73 F.3d 823, 825 (8th Cir. 1996) (rejecting argument that district court must state on record that it had considered sentencing factors and explain reasons for sentence imposed).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Burdex
10th Cir. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lee, 957 F.2d at 774 -75 (citing United States v. Graves, 914 F.2d 159, 160 (8th Cir. 1990)).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Burdex
10th Cir. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lee, 957 F.2d at 774 -75 (citing United States v. Graves, 914 F.2d 159, 160 (8th Cir.1990)).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Tommy Lee Brown, Jr.
6th Cir. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Graves, 914 F.2d 159, 160 (8th Cir.1990).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Rodney W. Johnson
8th Cir. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Graves, 914 F.2d 159, 161 (8th Cir. 1990) (per curiam). 7 Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. 1 The Honorable William G.
cited Cited "see" United States v. Norman William Smeathers
8th Cir. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Graves, 914 F.2d 159, 161 (8th Cir.1990).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Kevin Washington
6th Cir. · 1998 · signal: see also · confidence medium
United States v. Blackston, 940 F.2d 877, 893-94 (3d Cir.1991); see also United States v. Graves, 914 F.2d 159, 160 (11th Cir.1990) (holding that there is no requirement that the district court make specific factual findings with respect to each 3353(a) factor); United States v. Lockard, 910 F.2d 542, 546 (9th Cir.1990) (requiring only a “general statement” of the district court’s reasons).
cited Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Curtis Smith
2d Cir. · 1992 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., United States v. Graves, 914 F.2d 159, 160 (8th Cir.1990).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Orrin Lugard Jones, Also Known as O.J.
8th Cir. · 1992 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See United States v. Blackston, 940 F.2d 877, 893 (3d Cir.) (when working with Chapter 7 policy statements, district court not required to justify decision to impose sentence outside of prescribed range by finding aggravating factor warranting upward departure under 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (b)), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 611 , 116 L.Ed.2d 634 (1991); see also United States v. Graves, 914 F.2d 159, 160 (8th Cir.1990) (per curiam) (“there is no requirement that the district court make specific findings relating to each of the factors considered”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
Larry GRAVES, A/K/A Larry Grayes, Appellant
90-1492.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Sep 19, 1990.
914 F.2d 159
1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 16470
1990 WL 134725
James C. Delworth, St. Louis, Mo., for appellant., John E. Hall, St. Louis, Mo., for appellee.
Fagg, Beam, Woods.
Cited by 39 opinions  |  Published
[*160] PER CURIAM.

Larry Graves appeals from the judgment of the district court [1] imposing an 18-month term of imprisonment upon revocation of his supervised release. Graves contends that the district court erred in failing to consider the factors for sentencing set out in 18 U.S.C. §§ 3558 and 3583 and by inappropriately applying a statutory provision requiring a minimum sentence of one-third the term of supervised release for defendants found in possession of a controlled substance. Graves also contends that the 18-month sentence is unreasonable under the facts of the case. We affirm.

Larry Graves pled guilty to one count of unlawfully possessing stolen mail, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1708. The district court imposed a 15-month term of imprisonment to be followed by a two-year term of supervised release. The court required, as one of the conditions of supervised release, that the defendant participate in an approved substance abuse program which could include testing for illegal drug use.

Graves was released from prison in August 1989 and was assigned to a drug abuse program in October 1989. Between October 1989 and January 1990, Graves failed to report for scheduled drug testing and counseling at the drug abuse center on eight occasions.

There is no dispute that Graves missed scheduled drug tests in violation of the condition of his supervised release. In fact, at the revocation hearing, he admitted reporting to his probation officer in January 1990 that he was again using drugs. After finding that Graves had violated a condition of supervised release, the district court sentenced Graves to an 18-month prison term.

Graves first contends that the district court failed to consider the factors set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) in imposing sentence. [2] To the contrary, the court specifically mentioned several of the factors; the nature of the violation, general deterrence to criminal conduct, protection of the public from further crimes of the defendant and the defendant’s educational background and criminal history. More to the point, there is no requirement that the district court make specific findings relating to each of the factors considered.

Graves next contends that the district court improperly applied § 3583(g) [3] in his sentencing without Graves having received notice, as required by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, of the allegation of possession of a controlled substance while on supervised release. Had the district court applied § 3583(g), the minimum sentence would have been eight months (one-third of the twenty-four month term of supervised release).

[*161] It is unclear from the record whether the district court applied § 3583(g) in imposing the sentence. In any event, it is not necessary for this court to reach either the question of whether Graves’ admission of drug use (thus possession) in the revocation hearing constituted a waiver of the notice requirements of Fed.R.Crim.P. 32.1(a)(2)(A) or whether the district court properly determined the minimum sentence to be imposed as eight months.

Imposition of the 18-month sentence falls squarely within the discretion of the district court. Section 3583(e)(3) authorizes the district court to “revoke a term of supervised release, and require the person to serve in prison all or part of the term of supervised release without credit for time previously served on postrelease supervision, if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person violated a condition of supervised release.... ” Graves was serving a two-year term of supervised release. He admittedly failed to abide by a condition of his supervised release. He was sentenced to less than the two-year maximum penalty.

When the district court imposes a sentence within the statutory limits, this court will not disturb that sentence absent an abuse of discretion. United States v. Amahia, 825 F.2d 177 (8th Cir.1987); United States v. Wright, 799 F.2d 423 (8th Cir.1986); Castaldi v. United States, 783 F.2d 119 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1172, 106 S.Ct. 2897, 90 L.Ed.2d 983 (1986). We cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in any way in the imposition of sentence in this ease.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

1

. The Honorable William L. Hungate, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

2

. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) states that only certain provisions of § 3553 are to be considered in a supervised released revocation sentencing: (a)(1) ("the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant”); (a)(2)(B) ("the need for the sentence imposed ... to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct”); (a)(2)(C) ("the need for the sentence imposed ... to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant”); (a)(2)(D) ("the need for the sentence imposed ... to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner”); (a)(4) ("the kinds of sentence and the sentencing range established for the applicable category of offense committed by the applicable category of the defendant as set forth in the guidelines that are issued by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(a)(1) that is in effect on the date the defendant is sentenced”); (a)(5) (“any pertinent policy statement issued by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(a)(2) that is in effect on the date the defendant is sentenced”); and (a)(6) ("the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct”).

3

. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g) provides:

Possession of controlled substances. — If the defendant is found by the court to be in the possession of a controlled substance the court shall terminate the term of supervised release and require the defendant to serve in prison not less than one-third of the term of supervised release.