Court Opinion

ID: 9366342
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-26 17:00:23.527392+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:51.897911
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                              For the Eighth Circuit
                          ___________________________

                                  No. 22-2833
                          ___________________________

                               United States of America

                          lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                             v.

                               Pollock Gerald Rush, Sr.

                        lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                        ____________

                      Appeal from United States District Court
                         for the Northern District of Iowa
                                  ____________

                             Submitted: January 17, 2023
                               Filed: January 26, 2023
                                    [Unpublished]
                                   ____________

Before SHEPHERD, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
                           ____________

PER CURIAM.

       Pollock Rush, Sr. appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised release
and, in an amended judgment, sentenced him to 24 months in prison, followed by 3

      1
       The Honorable C.J. Williams, United States District Judge for the Northern
District of Iowa.
years of supervised release. His counsel moved to withdraw and filed a brief
challenging the substantive reasonableness of the amended revocation sentence.

       After careful review of the record, we conclude the district court did not abuse
its discretion in imposing the amended revocation sentence. See United States v.
Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 917-18 (8th Cir. 2009) (reviewing substantive reasonableness
of revocation sentenced under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard). The record
reflects the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors; there is no
indication the district court overlooked a relevant 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, 922-24 (8th Cir.
2006); and the amended revocation sentence is within the statutory maximum, see 18
U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3), (h), (k).

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

                                         -2-