Court Opinion

ID: 9383979
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-31 16:00:45.2141+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:49.843782
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 22-3361
                        ___________________________

                            United States of America

                                       Plaintiff Appellee

                                        v.

                              Adam Randal Shouse

                                     Defendant Appellant
                                  ____________

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

                           Submitted: March 27, 2023
                             Filed: March 31, 2023
                                 [Unpublished]
                                 ____________

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

PER CURIAM.

      Adam Shouse appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised release
and sentenced him to 12 months in prison, followed by 15 months of supervised

      1
        The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa.
release. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief arguing that the
sentence is substantively unreasonable.

       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). There is no indication that the district court
overlooked 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
relevant factors. See United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 923-24 (8th Cir. 2006);
see also 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
reasonableness on appeal).

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

                                         -2-