1

The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-3695

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Ryan F. Staley, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: August 10, 2009

Filed: August 27, 2009

___________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Upon revoking Ryan Staley’s supervised release, the district court1

 sentenced

Staley to 4 years in prison and 1 year of supervised release. He appeals. 

In reviewing the sentence for abuse of discretion, we must first ensure there was

no significant procedural error--such as failing to consider the relevant 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) factors--and then assess the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. See

Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007); United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d
-2-

910, 915-16 (8th Cir. 2009) (court reviews district court’s revocation sentencing

decision using same standards applied to initial sentencing decisions). As to whether

the district court committed significant procedural error, in the absence of an objection

at sentencing, we review for plain error, see Miller, 557 F.3d at 916, and we find none

here. The record shows that the district court considered various § 3553(a) factors,

including Staley’s continued drug and alcohol use, his history of violence against

family members, his need for substance-abuse and mental-health treatment, and the

need to deter others from engaging in similar conduct. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)

(specifying § 3553(a) factors that courts must consider in revocation decision,

including § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B)-(D)); United States v. White Face, 383 F.3d 733,

740 (8th Cir. 2004) (district court need not list every § 3553(a) consideration when

sentencing defendant upon revocation of supervised release). 

We further conclude that Staley’s sentence is not substantively unreasonable.

First, it was below the statutory maximum for his underlying offense. See 18 U.S.C.

§ 3583(e)(3) (upon revocation, maximum time defendant may be required to serve in

prison is 5 years if offense that resulted in term of supervised release is Class A

felony), § 3583(h) (revocation sentence may include imprisonment and additional

supervised release; however, additional supervised-release term may not exceed

supervised-release term authorized by statute for offense resulting in original

supervised release, less any revocation prison term). Second, there is no indication

that the district court failed to consider a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an

improper or irrelevant factor, or made a clear error of judgment in weighing the

factors. See Miller, 557 F.3d at 917 (listing circumstances where sentencing court

abuses its discretion, resulting in unreasonable sentence).

Accordingly, we affirm. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, subject to

counsel informing appellant about procedures for seeking rehearing and filing a

petition for certiorari.

______________________________