United States v. Alvaro Jerez-Ravaric

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 11-3448 ___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Northern District of Iowa. Alvaro Rene Jerez-Ravaric, * also known as J. Doe 522, * [UNPUBLISHED] also known as Rene Perez, * * Appellant. * ___________ Submitted: February 15, 2012 Filed: February 21, 2012 ___________ Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Alvaro Rene Jerez-Ravaric challenges the reasonableness of the six-month sentence the District Court1 imposed after revoking his supervised release. Upon careful review, we conclude that the revocation sentence was not unreasonable, as it was within the advisory U.S. Sentencing Guidelines range and below the statutory maximum. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (limiting the maximum term of imprisonment 1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. upon revocation of supervised release to two years for a Class C felony); United States v. Petreikis, 551 F.3d 822, 824 (8th Cir. 2009) (applying a presumption of substantive reasonableness to a revocation sentence within the Guidelines range); United States v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107, 1110 (8th Cir. 2008) (noting that a district court need not make specific findings on the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors if there is evidence that the court was aware of the relevant factors); United States v. Tyson, 413 F.3d 824, 825 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (holding that revocation sentences should be reviewed under the “unreasonableness” standard announced in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005)). We affirm the sentence imposed by the District Court. ______________________________ -2-