Court Opinion

ID: 9894888
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-03 16:01:12.023981+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:57.152714
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 23-2666
                        ___________________________

                             United States of America

                        lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                           v.

                             Charles Glen Harrington

                       lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                       ____________

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

                           Submitted: October 31, 2023
                            Filed: November 3, 2023
                                 [Unpublished]
                                 ____________

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

PER CURIAM.

       Charles Harrington appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised
release and sentenced him to 6 months in prison and 60 months of supervised release.

      1
      The Honorable Stephen H. Locher, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of Iowa.
His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief challenging one of the
violations and the revocation sentence.

      Upon careful review, we conclude the district court did not err in finding that
Harrington violated the terms of his supervised release by failing to notify the Iowa
Sex Offender Registry about the cell phone he had obtained and the accounts that he
had created on Facebook and Gmail using that device. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3);
United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 913-14 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review).

       We also conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing
Harrington, as it properly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors; there was no
indication that it overlooked a relevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment
in weighing relevant factors, see United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 915-18 (8th
Cir. 2009) (standard of review); see also United States v. White Face, 383 F.3d 733,
740 (8th Cir. 2004); and the sentence was within the advisory Guidelines range, and
below the statutory limit, see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3); 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B).

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

                                         -2-