United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 22-2991

___________________________

United States of America

Plaintiff Appellee

v.

Kenneth Leandrew Williams

Defendant Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Central

 ____________

 Submitted: December 29, 2022

Filed: January 19, 2023

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Kenneth Williams appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised

release and sentenced him to 5 months in prison and 10 years of supervised release,

1The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Southern District of Iowa.
with a special condition that he reside in a residential reentry center for up to 120

days. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief challenging 

the revocation sentence and the reentry center requirement. Williams has filed a pro

se brief challenging the legality of his sentence.

After careful review of the record, we conclude that the revocation sentence

was not illegal, as the sentence and additional term of supervised release are within

the statutory maximum. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (maximum revocation prison

term is 2 years if underlying offense is Class C felony), (k) (maximum supervised

release term is life); United States v. Childs, 17 F.4th 790, 792 (8th Cir. 2021) (noting

that supervised release is distinct from the prison term and may be imposed in

addition to the statutory maximum for the offense of conviction; rejecting argument

that revocation sentence was illegal because defendant had already served more than

the statutory maximum for the offense of conviction); United States v. Zoran, 682

F.3d 1060, 1062-64 (8th Cir. 2012) (reviewing the legality of a revocation sentence

de novo). Further, the sentence was not unreasonable, as the district court properly

considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors; there was no indication that it overlooked

a relevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors;

and the revocation sentence is within the advisory Guidelines range. See United

States v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107, 1110 (8th Cir. 2008) (holding that a revocation

sentence within the Guidelines range is accorded a presumption of substantive

reasonableness on appeal); United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 915-18 (8th Cir.

2009) (reviewing the substantive reasonableness of a revocation sentence under a

deferential abuse-of-discretion standard).

We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by requiring

Williams to return to a reentry center. See 18 U.S.C. § 3563(b)(11) (court may

require probationer to reside at a community corrections facility for all or part of the

term of probation); U.S.S.G. § 5B1.3(e)(1) (residence in a community treatment

center, halfway house or similar facility may be imposed as a condition of probation); 

-2-
United States v. Melton, 666 F.3d 513, 517-18 (8th Cir. 2012) (holding that the

district court has broad discretion to impose special conditions that are reasonably

related to § 3553 factors, involve no greater deprivation of liberty than reasonably

necessary, and are consistent with any pertinent Sentencing Commission policy

statements).

As to Williams’s pro se argument, we conclude that the district court was

authorized to impose both a prison sentence and a term of supervised release. See 18

U.S.C. § 3583(h) (when a term of supervised release is revoked and the defendant is

required to serve a term of imprisonment, the court may include a requirement that

the defendant be placed on a term of supervised release after imprisonment). And the

terms of imprisonment imposed for Williams’s prior revocations do not “closely

resemble the punishment of new criminal offenses . . . without granting a defendant

the rights, including the jury right, that attend a new criminal prosecution.” United

States v. Haymond, 139 S. Ct. 2369, 2386 (2019) (Breyer, J., concurring in the

judgment).

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

______________________________

-3-