United States v. Brian Bear Heels

1The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 06-1244
___________
United States of America, *
*
Appellee, * Appeal from the United States
* District Court for the
v. * Western District of Missouri.
*
Jeffrey S. Sauerbry, * [UNPUBLISHED]
*
Appellant. *
___________
Submitted: October 27, 2006
Filed: October 31, 2006
___________
Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Jeffrey Sauerbry appeals the 12-month prison sentence that the district court 1
imposed after revoking his supervised release. For reversal, Sauerbry argues the
sentence was unreasonable because the court failed to consider the factors listed in 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a).
We conclude that the record reflects the district court considered the appropriate
factors, and that the revocation sentence was not unreasonable. See United States v.

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
Nelson, 453 F.3d 1004, 1006 (8th Cir. 2006) (district court must consider advisory
sentencing range and policy statements found in Guidelines Chapter 7, and must also
consider § 3553(a) factors); United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 923 (8th Cir.
2006) (district court need not mechanically list every § 3553(a) consideration when
sentencing defendant upon revocation of supervised release); United States v. Tyson,
413 F.3d 824, 825 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (revocation sentences are reviewed for
unreasonableness in accordance with United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005));
United States v. White Face, 383 F.3d 733, 740 (8th Cir. 2004) (all that is required in
revocation sentencing is evidence that court has considered relevant matters and that
some reason be stated for its decision).
Accordingly, we affirm.
______________________________

-- 2 of 2 --