Lawrence E. Lupien v. Harold W. Clarke

1
The Honorable Nanette Laughrey, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Missouri.
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 04-2880
___________
United States of America, *
*
Appellee, *
* Appeal From the United States
v. * District Court for the
* Western District of Missouri.
Carl D. Edwards, *
* [PUBLISHED]
Appellant. *
___________
Submitted: January 10, 2005
Filed: March 7, 2005
___________
Before SMITH, HEANEY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Carl D. Edwards brings this appeal following the revocation of his supervised
release. His attorney has filed a brief on his behalf pursuant to Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), seeking to withdraw as counsel. Finding no nonfrivolous
issues, we affirm the district court’s 1 revocation of Edwards’s supervised release and
accompanying sentence and conditionally grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
Following the completion of his prison term for an armed bank robbery
conviction, Edwards was alleged to have violated the conditions of his supervised
release. On July 21, 2004, Edwards admitted to violating the terms of his release by
unlawfully using a controlled substance. The court then imposed a sentence of five
months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release.
Given Edwards’s admission of the violation, we find no clear error in the
district court’s findings of fact supporting the revocation and no abuse of discretion
in the decision to revoke Edwards’s supervised release. United States v. Carothers,
337 F.3d 1017, 1019 (8th Cir. 2003) (standard of review); see also 18 U.S.C. §
3583(e)(3) (empowering the district court to revoke a defendant’s supervised release
where the defendant violates a supervised release condition).
Although the Supreme Court’s recent decision in United States v. Booker, 125
S. Ct. 738 (2005), significantly changed the state of federal sentencing, its effect on
sentences imposed for supervised release violations is far less dramatic. The United
States Sentencing Guidelines associated with supervised release violations were
considered advisory even before the Court’s decision in Booker. See United States
v. White Face, 383 F.3d 733, 738 (8th Cir. 2004) (recognizing that the policy
statements in Chapter 7 of the guidelines, relating to supervised release violations, are
advisory only). Thus, we find no error in the district court’s consultation of the
guidelines in determining Edwards’s sentence. Moreover, our review of the
guidelines associated with supervised release violations reveals that, given Edwards’s
criminal history and the nature of his violation, he received the lowest sentence
suggested by the guidelines. USSG §§ 7B1.1, p.s., 7B1.4, p.s. We cannot say that
in this instance such a sentence is unreasonable. Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 765
(announcing appellate standard of review for sentences imposed by the district court
requires a determination of the reasonableness of the sentence). We thus affirm the

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
district court and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw on the condition that Edwards
is advised of his right to petition the Supreme Court for certiorari.
______________________________

-- 3 of 3 --