United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 21-2656

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Carl Mervin Renecker

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of North Dakota - Eastern

 ____________

 Submitted: October 21, 2021

Filed: November 4, 2021

[Unpublished]

____________

Before BENTON, KELLY, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Carl Mervin Renecker was convicted in 2011 of a drug offense and was subject

to supervised release after completing his prison sentence in 2018. His first term of

supervised release was revoked because he admittedly tested positive for

methamphetamine and was terminated from a Residential Reentry Center (RRC)

program. He was sentenced to three months in prison to be followed by three years
of supervised release. His second term of supervised release was revoked after he

twice tested positive for methamphetamine soon after being released from prison and

was again terminated from the RRC. He was sentenced to four months in prison, with

credit for time served, and three years of supervised release to follow. Renecker now

appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed after his supervised release was

revoked for the third time because he admittedly failed to report for substance abuse

testing on multiple dates, he repeatedly used methamphetamine and tested positive

for using it, including when he again entered the RRC, and he absconded from the

RRC. He was sentenced to eleven months in prison, with credit for time served,

followed by two years of supervised release. His counsel has moved to withdraw and

has filed a brief, challenging the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.

After reviewing the record under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard, we

conclude the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. See

United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 917 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review). 

Renecker disagrees with how the district court weighed certain factors, but that alone

is insufficient to show an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Richart, 662 F.3d

1037, 1054 (8th Cir. 2011). The district court sufficiently considered the relevant

statutory sentencing factors and did not overlook a relevant factor, give significant

weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or commit a clear error of judgment in

weighing relevant factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); Miller, 557 F.3d at 917. The

sentence, moreover, is below the statutory limits, see § 3583(e)(3), (h); 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(b)(1)(A); United States v. Aguayo-Delgado, 220 F.3d 926, 933 (8th Cir. 2000),

and is presumptively reasonable because it is within the applicable policy statement

range in the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual, see U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a);

United States v. Petreikis, 551 F.3d 822, 824–25 (8th Cir. 2009). 

1The Honorable Peter D. Welte, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the District of North Dakota.

-2-
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw. 

______________________________

-3-