United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 13-1100
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Charles Leopole Ellis
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
____________
Submitted: July 1, 2013
Filed: July 5, 2013
[Unpublished]
____________
Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Charles Ellis directly appeals the district court’s1 modification of the conditions
of his supervised release. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief
1
The Honorable Howard F. Sachs, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Missouri.
under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning the district court’s
authority to modify Ellis’s conditions of supervised release without a finding that
Ellis had committed a violation.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court acted within its
authority. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) (court may order condition to extent that such
condition, inter alia, is reasonably related to history and characteristics of defendant,
and involves no greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary to afford
adequate deterrence to criminal conduct, to protect public from further crimes of
defendant, and to provide defendant with needed medical care or other correctional
treatment in most effective manner); cf. United States v. Davies, 380 F.3d 329, 332
(8th Cir. 2004) (district court may modify conditions imposed on supervised-release
term even when modification is based only on evidence that was available at original
sentencing; statute that authorizes district courts to modify conditions of supervised
release does not require new evidence, nor even changed circumstances in
defendant’s life). Furthermore, having reviewed the record independently under
Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues.
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.
______________________________
-2-