United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 21-3441

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Samuel Melbern Steward, Sam Steward

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Central

 ____________

 Submitted: March 2, 2022 

Filed: March 7, 2022 

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Samuel Steward appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised release

and sentenced him to eighteen months in prison and forty-two months of supervised

1The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa.
release. He argues the sentence violated Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319 (2011),

and is substantively unreasonable.

Because Steward did not raise a Tapia objection at sentencing, we review for

plain error. See United States v. Clark, 998 F.3d 363, 368 (8th Cir. 2021). After

reviewing the record, we conclude the district court did not commit a plain procedural

error under Tapia when imposing Steward’s prison sentence. See Tapia, 564 U.S. at

334 (explaining that a district court does not err by discussing opportunities for

rehabilitation within prison and may urge the Bureau of Prisons to place a defendant

in a prison treatment program); Clark, 998 F.3d at 368 (reiterating that no plain Tapia

error occurs if a district court never expresses an intention to lengthen the sentence

for rehabilitative purposes); United States v. Rickert, 685 F.3d 760, 769 (8th Cir.

2012) (concluding no Tapia error occurs when a district court merely recommends

that the Bureau of Prisons provide a defendant with mental health treatment). Nor did

the district court plainly err when it imposed Steward’s supervised release sentence. 

See Tapia, 564 U.S. at 321, 325-26, 335 (limiting the holding to prison sentences and

recognizing differences between prison and supervised release sentences); United

States v. Schupp, 488 Fed. Appx. 170, 173 (8th Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (concluding

Tapia does not apply to the imposition of a supervised release term); accord United

States v. Alberts, 859 F.3d 979, 986 n.3 (11th Cir. 2017). 

The sentence, which falls below the statutory limits and the applicable policy

statement range in the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual, is not

substantively unreasonable. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3), (h); 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(b)(1)(A); Clark, 998 F.3d at 369 (“[I]t is an ‘unusual case when we reverse a

district court sentence--whether within, above, or below the applicable Guidelines

range--as substantively unreasonable.’” (citation omitted)). There is no indication the

district court overlooked a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper or

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

See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); Clark, 998 F.3d at 369 (deferential abuse-of-discretion

-2-
review of the substantive reasonableness of a revocation sentence); United States v.

Wisecarver, 644 F.3d 764, 774 (8th Cir. 2011) (explaining a district court has wide

latitude to weigh the relevant factors and assign some factors greater weight than

others). 

The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________

-3-