Background
Khemall Jokhoo, proceeding without counsel, appealed from the District of Minnesota after the district court revoked his supervised release. The district court sentenced him to 24 months in prison followed by 24 months of supervised release.
Jokhoo challenged the revocation sentence on substantive-reasonableness and Eighth Amendment grounds and raised additional arguments. He also requested that the Eighth Circuit appoint counsel for him.
The Court’s Holding
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. Applying deferential abuse-of-discretion review, the court concluded that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable revocation sentence. It also noted that the sentence was below the statutory maximum under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3).
The court rejected Jokhoo’s argument that the sentence violated the Eighth Amendment and determined that his remaining arguments lacked merit. It also denied his request for appointment of counsel.
Key Takeaways
- Revocation sentences are reviewed for substantive reasonableness under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.
- The 24-month prison term was below the applicable statutory maximum.
- The court rejected the Eighth Amendment challenge, affirmed the judgment, and denied appointment of counsel.
Why It Matters
The unpublished decision illustrates the substantial deference appellate courts give district courts when reviewing the substantive reasonableness of supervised-release revocation sentences. A sentence below the statutory maximum remains subject to review, but the appellant must establish a basis for finding an abuse of discretion.