U.S. v. Carothers
| Decision Date | 30 July 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 03-1303.,03-1303. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Linda D. CAROTHERS, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Cyril Mehrle Hendricks, argued, Jefferson City, MO, for appellant.
Anthony P. Gonzalez, argued, Asst. U.S. Atty., Jefferson City, MO, for appellee.
Before MELLOY, HANSEN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Linda Carothers was sentenced to time served and three years of supervised release after pleading guilty to use of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of murder for hire. One condition of her release was that she "not commit any other federal, state or local crime." After serving approximately 14 months of supervised release, Carothers was charged with second-degree assault, a Class C felony in Missouri. After a hearing, the district court1 revoked Carothers' supervised release and sentenced her to 24 months in prison. Carothers appeals, arguing that the district court abused its discretion in revoking her supervised release because the government failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she violated a condition of her supervised release.
If the government proves by a preponderance of the evidence that a defendant violated a condition of supervised release, unrelated to firearms or controlled substances, the district court has discretion to revoke supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3), (g) (2000) (). "On appeal, the district court's decision to revoke supervised release based on its finding of a violation is reviewed only for abuse of discretion." United States v. Whalen, 82 F.3d 528, 532 (1st Cir.1996) (cited in United States v. Reeves, No. 96-2905, 1997 WL 215381, at *1 (8th Cir. May 1, 1997) (unpublished)). "And, as in other contexts where a district court has discretion to take certain action based on its findings of fact, the court's subsidiary factfinding as to whether or not a violation occurred is reviewed for clear error." Id.
After an alleged "road rage" incident on December 18, 2002, Carothers was arrested and charged in Callaway County, Missouri, with second-degree assault. Under Missouri law, Mo. Ann. Stat. § 565.060(2) (West 1999). A car can be a "dangerous instrument depending upon the circumstances under which it is used." State v. Dunn, 852 S.W.2d 157, 158 (Mo.Ct.App. 1993) (internal marks omitted). At Carothers' probation revocation hearing, the alleged...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Riesselman
...because the drugs were found in his pocket. However, the district court found his testimony not credible. See United States v. Carothers, 337 F.3d 1017, 1019 (8th Cir.2003) (“[C]redibility determinations [by the district court] are virtually unreviewable on appeal.”) (internal quotation mar......
-
United States v. Henderson
...occurred is reviewed for clear error." United States v. Boyd , 792 F.3d 916, 919 (8th Cir.2015) (quoting United States v. Carothers , 337 F.3d 1017, 1019 (8th Cir.2003) ). But when an appellant fails to raise his objections before the district court, we review for plain error. United States......
-
United States v. Wallace
...very cooperative, responsive, and apologetic, while Agent Perugini corroborated Detective Smith's testimony. See United States v. Carothers, 337 F.3d 1017, 1019 (8th Cir.2003) (noting that a district court's “credibility determinations are ‘virtually unreviewable on appeal’ ”) (quoting Unit......
-
U.S. v. Rogers, 07-1790.
...evidence—that he violated the conditions of his supervised release by committing an assault under state law. See United States v. Carothers, 337 F.3d 1017, 1019 (8th Cir.2003) (district court did not clearly err in concluding that defendant had violated condition of supervised release by co......
-
Termination, modification and revocation of probation and supervised release
...for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Nolan , 932 F.2d 1005, 1006 (1st Cir. 1991). See also United States v. Carothers, 337 F.3d 1017, 1919 (8th Cir. 2003) (standard of review: clear error with respect to findings of fact and abuse of discretion PROBATION, SUPERVISED RELEASE §16:82 F......