Case Name: UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Carl Deon SHINN Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-11-09
Citations: 700 F. App'x 564
Docket Number: No. 17-1365
Parties: UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Carl Deon SHINN Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 700
Pages: 564–565

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Carl Deon SHINN Defendant-Appellant
No. 17-1365
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: November 6, 2017
Filed: November 9, 2017
Virginia Bruner, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Des Moines, IA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Timothy S. Ross-Boon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Iowa, Des Moines, IA, for Defendant-Appellant
Carl Deon Shinn, Pro Se
Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Carl Shinn directly appeals the sentence the district court imposed upon revoking his supervised release. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief challenging the substantive reasonableness of Shinn's above-guidelines prison term. Shinn has filed a pro se brief challenging the revocation decision and his revocation sentence, and arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the revocation of Shinn's supervised release was proper. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (stating that the court may revoke a term of supervised release if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated a condition of supervised release); United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 913-14 (8th Cir. 2009) (reviewing for clear error factual findings related to a supervised-release revocation). We further conclude that the revocation sentence is not substantively unreasonable, as it is within the statutory limits, and the court appropriately considered relevant factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (identifying the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors that the court must consider before revoking a term of supervised release and imposing a sentence); United States v. Growden, 663 F.3d 982, 984 (8th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (reviewing the substantive reasonableness of a revocation sentence for an abuse of discretion). As for Shinn's ineffective-assistance arguments, we decline to consider them on direct appeal. See United States v. Hughes, 330 F.3d 1068, 1069 (8th Cir. 2003) (noting that ineffective-assistance claims are more properly reviewed in collateral proceedings). Counsel's motion for leave to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.
. The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.