Court Opinion

ID: 6323350
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-03-15 15:01:40.130538+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:35.726578
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
         For the Eighth Circuit
     ___________________________

             No. 21-3729
     ___________________________

          United States of America,

     lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,

                        v.

            Adam Randal Shouse,

   lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant.
      ___________________________

             No. 21-3731
     ___________________________

          United States of America,

     lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,

                        v.

            Adam Randal Shouse,

   lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant.
                    ____________

 Appeals from United States District Court
 for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern
               ____________
                              Submitted: March 2, 2022
                               Filed: March 15, 2022
                                   [Unpublished]
                                   ____________

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

PER CURIAM.

       In these consolidated appeals, Adam Shouse challenges the sentence imposed
by the district court1 after it revoked the supervised release terms that Shouse was
serving for two separate convictions. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has
filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

       After careful review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not
abuse its discretion in sentencing Shouse, as there is no indication that the 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. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 914 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review);
United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 922-23 (8th Cir. 2006). The sentence was
within the advisory sentencing guidelines range and below the statutory limit, see 18
U.S.C. § 3583(b)(2), (e)(3); and the district court explained that it had considered the
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, see United States v. Wohlman, 651 F.3d 878, 887 (8th
Cir. 2011).

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

      1
        The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa.

                                          -2-