Court Opinion

ID: 9554889
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-10 15:01:20.396197+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:38:58.351908
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 23-1827
                         ___________________________

                              United States of America

                         lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                            v.

                                      Eddie Mull

                       lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                       ____________

                    Appeal from United States District Court
                  for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
                                  ____________

                             Submitted: August 7, 2023
                              Filed: August 10, 2023
                                  ____________

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

PER CURIAM.

      Eddie Mull appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised release and
sentenced him to 8 months in prison and 2 years of supervised release. His counsel

      1
       The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Missouri.
has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief challenging the substantive
reasonableness of the 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.
McGhee, 869 F.3d 703, 705-06 (8th Cir. 2017) (per curiam). 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 that 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 McGhee, 869 F.3d at 706.

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

                                         -2-