United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 18-1216

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Brandon Devos

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

___________________________

No. 18-1217

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Brandon Devos

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

____________

Appeals from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids

____________
Submitted: May 13, 2019

Filed: June 13, 2019

[Unpublished]

____________

Before COLLOTON, BEAM, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Brandon Devos appeals his within-Guidelines-range sentence following

revocation of his supervised release in two federal criminal cases. Having

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

Devos pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute heroin in 2006 and wassentenced

to 104 months imprisonment and 3 years of supervised release. He briefly escaped

from a residential reentry center in 2013, leading to a second federal case in which

he pled guilty to escaping from custody. In this second case, Devos received a

sentence of 21 months imprisonment plus 3 years of supervised release. He began

serving his two three-year terms of supervised release concurrently in 2016. 

Five months later, Devos’s supervised release was revoked after he failed to

participate in substance abuse testing, used methamphetamine, associated with

persons engaged in criminal activity, and lied to his probation officer. He received

a sentence of two concurrent 12-month terms of imprisonment followed by two years

ofsupervised release. As a special condition ofsupervised release, Devos’s sentence

included a mandated period of up to 120 days in a residential reentry center. In June

2017, Devos began his third term of supervised release and, at his request, was

released to the Central District of California. However, after he failed to secure

residential reentry center placement in California, Devos requested that his

supervision be transferred back to the Northern District of Iowa, and he entered a

residential reentry center in Cedar Rapids. 

-2-
In January 2018, the United States Probation Office filed a petition to revoke

Devos’s supervised release, alleging that he failed to comply with residential reentry

center rules, committed two new law violations, and lied to his probation officer. The

district court held a revocation hearing. Devos admitted or did not contest the

1

alleged violations, and the district court revoked his terms of supervised release in

both cases. 

Devos’s Guidelines range in each case was 24 months. He sought a sentence

of 15 months imprisonment, while the government sought a 24-month term of

imprisonment. Neither requested a term of supervised release. The district court

considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and sentenced Devos to concurrent

sentences of 24 months imprisonment in each case with no supervised release to

follow. Devos appealed, arguing that the district court imposed a substantively

unreasonable sentence. 

We review a district court’s sentencing decision following revocation of

supervised release for an abuse of discretion. United States v. White, 840 F.3d 550,

554 (8th Cir. 2016). A district court abuses its discretion if it gives an improper

factor too much weight, does not consider a factor that should have been given

significant weight, or commits “a clear error of judgment” in weighing the various

factors. Id. 

The district court must consider the § 3553(a) factors in making its decision,

United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc), but it has

“wide latitude” to assign some of those factors greater weight than others. United

States v. David, 682 F.3d 1074, 1077 (8th Cir. 2012). If the sentence is within the

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern 1

District of Iowa.

-3-
range recommended by the Sentencing Guidelines, we may presume that sentence is

reasonable. Feemster, 572 F.3d at 461.

The recommended Guidelines ranges in Devos’s two cases were 24 to 30

months imprisonment and 33 to 41 months imprisonment, respectively. However, the

statutorymaximumsentence available afterrevocation ofsupervised release for Class

C and D felonies is 24 months imprisonment. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). Thus, the

effective Guidelines range in each of Devos’s cases became 24 months as well. The

district court imposed a 24-month sentence, which is within the Guidelines range. 

We may therefore presume that sentence is reasonable. 

On appeal, Devos does not argue that the district court relied on improper

factors or that it failed to consider factors that should have received significant

weight. Rather, he argues solely that the district court should have given more weight

to his demonstrated ability to hold down a job and his lack of supervised release

violations while he was in California. However, the district court carefully

considered these mitigating factors along with the § 3553(a) factors and ultimately

concluded a 24-month sentence was appropriate. We find that such a determination

was within the district court’s “wide latitude,” see David, 682 F.3d at 1077, and that

the district court did not abuse its discretion simply by failing to give some factors the

weight Devos would have preferred. Because we find no abuse of discretion, we

conclude that Devos’s sentence is not substantively unreasonable.

We affirm the district court’s judgment.

______________________________

-4-