Court Opinion

ID: 9363750
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-17 17:00:25.301363+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:33.959084
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 22-2691
                        ___________________________

                             United States of America

                        lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                           v.

          Michael Gene Haney, also known as Michael McClure Herman

                       lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                       ____________

                    Appeal from United States District Court
                 for the Western District of Arkansas - Ft. Smith
                                 ____________

                            Submitted: January 4, 2023
                             Filed: January 17, 2023
                                  [Unpublished]
                                 ____________

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

PER CURIAM.

      Michael Haney appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised release
and imposed a term of imprisonment, with no additional supervised release to follow.

      1
       The Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Arkansas.
Haney’s counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief arguing the district court
erred by revoking supervised release and by imposing a substantively unreasonable
sentence.

       We conclude that the district court did not err by revoking supervised release
and sufficiently considered the treatment alternative in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d), assuming
without deciding that it was required to do so. See United States v. Hole, 774 Fed.
Appx. 1007, 1008-09 (8th Cir. 2019) (per curiam); United States v. Kaniss, 150 F.3d
967, 969 (8th Cir. 1998). We also conclude that Haney’s sentence is not
substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 915-16, 917
(8th Cir. 2009) (revocation sentence is reviewed under same deferential abuse-of-
discretion standard applicable to initial sentencing decisions). The sentence is within
the statutory limits, see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3), and is presumptively reasonable
because it is within the applicable advisory range under the sentencing guidelines, see
U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a); United States v. Petreikis, 551 F.3d 822, 824 (8th Cir. 2009).
The district court sufficiently considered the relevant statutory sentencing factors and
did not overlook a relevant factor, give significant weight to an improper or irrelevant
factor, or commit a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors. See 18
U.S.C. § 3583(e); Miller, 557 F.3d at 917. Haney’s disagreement with how the court
weighed those factors is insufficient to show an abuse of discretion on this record.
See United States v. Wilkins, 909 F.3d 915, 918 (8th Cir. 2018); United States v.
Perez-Plascencia, 559 Fed. Appx. 608, 609 (8th Cir. 2014) (per curiam).

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

                                          -2-