Court Opinion

ID: 9919435
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-18 16:01:15.435286+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:04:58.796877
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 23-2983
                         ___________________________

                             United States of America,

                        lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,

                                           v.

                  Philip Maccani, also known as Phillip Maccani,

                       lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant.
                                        ____________

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

                          Submitted: December 28, 2023
                             Filed: January 18, 2024
                                  [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before COLLOTON, BENTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
                          ____________

PER CURIAM.

      Philip Maccani appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised release
and sentenced him to 9 months in prison and 2 years of supervised release. His

      1
       The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern
District of Iowa.
counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief challenging the findings of
certain violations and the reasonableness of the revocation sentence. In a pro se brief,
Maccani challenges the violations.

       Upon careful review, we conclude the district court did not clearly err in
finding that Maccani violated his supervised release. See United States v. Miller, 557
F.3d 910, 914 (8th Cir. 2009). We also conclude the district court did not abuse its
discretion in sentencing Maccani. The sentence was within the advisory guideline
range. There is no indication the district court failed to consider a relevant factor,
gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error
of judgment in weighing relevant factors. See Miller, 557 F.3d at 915-16; United
States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 923 (8th Cir. 2006); see also United States v.
Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107, 1110 (8th Cir. 2008). The revocation sentence was below
the statutory maximum. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(b)(2), (e)(3), (h).

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

                                          -2-