Court Opinion

ID: 9692699
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 16:01:10.906745+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:36.264981
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 23-2244
                        ___________________________

                             United States of America

                        lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                           v.

          Kendrick Shawnray Maid, also known as Kendrick Shawn Maid

                       lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                       ____________

                    Appeal from United States District Court
                    for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern
                                  ____________

                            Submitted: August 22, 2023
                              Filed: August 25, 2023
                                  [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
                         ____________

PER CURIAM.

      Kendrick Maid appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised release
and sentenced him to 24 months in prison and 12 months of supervised release. His

      1
        The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa.
counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief challenging the substantive
reasonableness of the revocation sentence.

      After careful review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not
abuse its discretion in imposing the revocation sentence. See United States v. Miller,
557 F.3d 910, 917-18 (8th Cir. 2009). The revocation sentence is within the
Guidelines range and accorded a presumption of substantive reasonableness on
appeal. See United States v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107, 1110 (8th Cir. 2008).
Moreover, there is no indication the district court failed to consider a relevant 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor,
or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the appropriate factors. See
United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 923 (8th Cir. 2006).

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

                                         -2-