Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-24-02828/USCOURTS-ca8-24-02828-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Raymundo Zelaya
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 24-2828

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Raymundo Zelaya

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City

 ____________

 Submitted: December 10, 2024

Filed: December 13, 2024

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SMITH, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Raymundo Zelaya appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised

release and sentenced him to time served and a new supervised-release term of 5

1The Honorable Roseann A. Ketchmark, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.

Appellate Case: 24-2828 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/13/2024 Entry ID: 5466056
years. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief challenging the

substantive reasonableness of the sentence.

After careful review, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion

in sentencing Zelaya. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 914 (8th Cir. 2009)

(reviewing substantive reasonableness of sentence for abuse of discretion). There is

no indication the court overlooked a relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factor, gave

significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed clear error of

judgment. See United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 922-24 (8th Cir. 2006)

(reciting factors to discern whether revocation sentence is unreasonable). The

sentence of time served was below the statutory maximum and the Guidelines range. 

See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (maximum revocation prison term is 2 years for Class C

felony); see also United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 464 (8th Cir. 2009) (en

banc) (it will be unusual case when we reverse district court sentence--whether

within, above, or below applicable Guidelines range--as substantively unreasonable). 

Moreover, the new term of supervised release was within the statutory limits. See 18

U.S.C. § 3583(h) (length of new supervised-release term shall not exceed term

authorized by statute for offense of conviction, less revocation prison terms); 21

U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) (maximum term of supervised release is life).

The written judgment’s statement, in part, that Zelaya was adjudicated guilty

of violating the mandatory condition that reads, “You must refrain from any unlawful

use of a controlled substance,” conflicts with the district court’s oral pronouncement. 

See United States v. Raftis, 427 F.2d 1145, 1146 (8th Cir. 1970) (per curiam) (oral

pronouncement prevails over contrary judgment). As the record on appeal makes the

court’s intent clear, we modify the written judgment in part to reflect that Zelaya was

found in violation of the mandatory condition that reads, “The defendant shall not

commit another federal, state or local crime.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2106; see also United

States v. Jacobs, 508 Fed. Appx. 576, 577-78 (8th Cir. 2013) (unpublished per

curiam) (remand is unnecessary where written judgment contains apparent clerical

-2-

Appellate Case: 24-2828 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/13/2024 Entry ID: 5466056
errors and district court’s intent is clear from record). We affirm the judgment as so

modified and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

-3-

Appellate Case: 24-2828 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/13/2024 Entry ID: 5466056