United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 17-2938
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Benjamin J. Henderson
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas - Texarkana
____________
Submitted: May 7, 2018
Filed: May 20, 2018
[Unpublished]
____________
Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Benjamin J. Henderson appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after
revoking his supervised release. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this
court affirms.
His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief discussing whether
delay in holding the revocation hearing violated Henderson’s due process rights,
whether there was sufficient proof of the violations alleged, and whether the
revocation sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable.
Upon review, this court rejects the contention that delay in holding the
revocation hearing violated Henderson’s due process rights. See Kartman v. Parratt,
535 F.2d 450, 455-56 (8th Cir. 1976) (rejecting due process claim based on delay in
holding parole revocation hearing where defendant did not allege prejudice). The
district court did not clearly err in determining that Henderson committed the
violations alleged. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (court may revoke supervised release
if it finds by preponderance of evidence that defendant violated condition of
supervised release); United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 913-14 (8th Cir. 2009)
(standard of review). This court concludes that the revocation sentence was neither
procedurally nor substantively unreasonable. See Miller, 557 F.3d at 915-17
(discussing appellate review of sentencing decisions; listing sources of procedural
error); see also United States v. Petreikis, 551 F.3d 822, 824 (8th Cir. 2009) (applying
presumption of substantive reasonableness to revocation sentence within Guidelines
range).
The judgment is affirmed. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.
______________________________
1
The Honorable Susan O. Hickey, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Arkansas.
-2-