United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 23-2453

___________________________ 

United States of America

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Joshuah Landon Tiesman

 Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa - Eastern

____________ 

Submitted: November 13, 2023

Filed: January 3, 2024

[Unpublished]

____________ 

Before COLLOTON, WOLLMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

In 2013, Joshuah Landon Tiesman pled guilty to attempting and aiding and 

abetting the attempt to manufacture methamphetamine near a school, in violation of 

21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(C), 846, 860(a) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. The district court 

sentenced him to 96 months in prison and six years of supervised release. The 

district court revoked his first term of supervised release in 2022, sentencing him to 
-2- 

four months in prison and two years of supervised release. In 2023, he violated his 

second term of supervised release. The district court1 sentenced him to 10 months 

in prison and four years of supervised release. He appeals. Having jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

Tiesman believes the district court procedurally erred by “basing its sentence 

on findings that were not supported by reliable evidence.” Where, as here, a 

defendant “fails to object timely to a procedural sentencing error, the error is 

forfeited and may only be reviewed for plain error.” United States v. Hill, 552 F.3d 

686, 690 (8th Cir. 2009). Under plain error review, the defendant must show: (1) an

error; (2) that is plain; (3) that affects substantial rights and (4) that “seriously affects 

the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. 

Tiesman challenges two violations, claiming there was no evidence that: (1)

he submitted a diluted urine sample; and (2) he was not actively searching for 

employment. This court need not decide whether the court erred in finding these 

violations because Tiesman cannot show prejudice. In addition to the now contested

violations, Tiesman admitted, and the court found, he: failed to provide a urine 

specimen for random drug testing, attempted to use someone else’s urine for drug 

testing, possessed drug paraphernalia and a prescription drug without a prescription, 

associated with a person engaged in criminal activity, and used cocaine and meth. 

Imposing his sentence, the district court did not reference the two contested 

conditions. Rather, it discussed his “substituting someone else’s urine or substance 

for his urine during drug testing,” “all-encompassing addition to 

methamphetamine,” failure to participate in drug treatment, and overall 

unsatisfactory conduct on supervision. On this record, Tiesman cannot show a 

reasonable probability that his sentence would have been different absent any 

alleged error. The court did not plainly err.

1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern 

District of Iowa.
-3- 

Tiesman asserts the court’s four-year term of supervised release was 

substantively unreasonable. This court reviews for abuse of discretion. United

States v. Beran, 751 F.3d 872, 875 (8th Cir. 2014). Imposing an additional term of

supervised release, the court properly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, 

including Tiesman’s serious drug addiction, noting he had “not taken what he has 

learned in substance abuse treatment and applied it to his own life.” It also 

considered his significant restitution obligations. It concluded he:

would benefit by further supervision by the United States Probation 

Office to not only help him with his sobriety issues if he is willing to 

confront those but, as Mr. Scheetz hassuggested, to help him find a safe 

place to live and also find employment because he must be employed 

full-time—he shouldn’t be quitting one job until he has another—all

arranged so it is a smooth transition and he can pay his restitution.

The court did not err in imposing a four-year term of supervised release. See United 

States v. Barber, 4 F.4th 689, 691 (8th Cir. 2021) (affirming a term of supervised 

release where the court said it was “not going to reward [the defendant] here today 

for bad behavior by shortening his term of supervised release”). 

* * * * * * *

The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________