Court Opinion

ID: 9414696
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 16:00:39.412519+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:58.276672
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 23-1872
                        ___________________________

                             United States of America

                        lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                           v.

                                Michael Ray Davis

                      lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                      ____________

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

                             Submitted: July 28, 2023
                              Filed: August 2, 2023
                                  [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

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

PER CURIAM.

       Michael Ray Davis appeals after the district court 1 revoked his supervised
release. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

      1
       The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern
District of Iowa.
       The court sentenced him to a prison term, to be followed by a term of
supervised release that includes a condition requiring him to temporarily reside at a
residential reentry center. Davis’s counsel has moved to withdraw and, in a brief,
argues the district court erred by referring generally to the special conditions of
release during the oral pronouncement, instead of specifically sentencing Davis to
the residential reentry condition.

       This court concludes Davis cannot now complain about the residential reentry
condition because counsel expressly agreed to it at the revocation hearing before the
district court pronounced its sentence. See United States v. Thompson, 289 F.3d
524, 526 (8th Cir. 2002). Regardless, the district court did not plainly err. See
United States v. Thompson, 888 F.3d 347, 350 (8th Cir. 2018) (standard of review).
Having reviewed the record, this court discerns no impermissible conflict between
the oral pronouncement and the written sentence. See United States v. Mays, 993
F.3d 607, 622 (8th Cir. 2021) (reiterating that there is no conflict if district court’s
written judgment is consistent with its discernible intent).

       The record also demonstrates the condition was reasonably related to Davis’s
history of violations, job instability, and substance abuse. See Thompson, 888 F.3d
at 351 (explaining that this court will affirm if basis for special condition can be
discerned from record); see also United States v. Melton, 666 F.3d 513, 518 (8th Cir.
2012) (noting 18 U.S.C. § 3563(b)(11) and U.S.S.G. § 5B1.3(e)(1) expressly
authorize a special supervised release condition requiring temporary residence at a
residential reentry center, and this court has “regularly upheld” such a condition as
reasonable).

      The judgment is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.
                      ______________________________

                                          -2-