Court Opinion

ID: 9390328
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-27 16:00:36.897633+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:33.664179
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                           For the Eighth Circuit
                       ___________________________

                               No. 22-3026
                       ___________________________

                            United States of America

                       lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                          v.

                                Shane A. Childers

                     lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                     ____________

                    Appeal from United States District Court
               for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
                                ____________

                           Submitted: March 13, 2023
                             Filed: April 27, 2023
                                 [Unpublished]
                                ____________

Before COLLOTON, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
                         ____________

PER CURIAM.

      Shane Childers appeals the substantive reasonableness of his revocation
sentence. We affirm.
       In 2009, Childers pleaded guilty to three child sex offenses and was sentenced
to 180 months’ imprisonment and ten years of supervised release. He began a term
of supervised release in 2021. A special term of supervised release prohibited him
from associating with non-family members under 15 years of age without prior
approval by a probation officer. A few months after commencing supervised release
Childers began residing with his fiance. The probation officer learned Childers’s
fiance’s 14-year-old son was staying at the residence every other weekend and had
spent at least three weekends in the home with Childers. Childers initially denied, but
later admitted, being present while the minor was in the residence.

      The probation officer filed a report alleging violations of two conditions of
supervised release: 1) a requirement to be truthful with the probation officer and
follow the instructions of the probation officer, and 2) associating with a non-family
member under the age of 15 without prior approval. The report was filed eight
months after Childers was released.

      Both parties agree the guideline range was three to nine months based on grade
C violations and a criminal history category of I. The district court1 revoked
supervised release and sentenced Childers to 12 months’ imprisonment.

      Childers argues his above guideline range sentence is substantively
unreasonable. In particular he argues the district court committed a clear error of
judgment in weighing the factors. “This court reviews the reasonableness of a
revocation sentence under the same deferential abuse-of-discretion standard that
applies to initial sentencing proceedings.” United States v. Dixon, 52 F.4th 731, 733
(8th Cir. 2022). A district court abuses its discretion if it: “(1) fails to consider a
relevant factor that should have received significant weight; (2) gives significant

      1
      The Honorable Roseann A. Ketchmark, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.

                                         -2-
weight to an improper or irrelevant factor; or (3) considers only the appropriate
factors but in weighing them commits a clear error of judgment.” Id.

       Childers argues his sentence is substantively unreasonable because he had
begun a sponsorship program that would have allowed him to seek approval from the
probation officer to have contact with the minor. Childers also argues he had
followed all other conditions of supervised release. According to Childers, it was a
clear error of judgment for the district court not to weigh his sponsorship program
participation more heavily.

       We disagree. All factors presented on appeal were presented to the district
court. There is no allegation the district court considered any improper factor.
Finally, it was not a clear error of judgment for the district court to weigh factors
differently than urged by Childers.

      Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
                     ______________________________

                                         -3-