Court Opinion

ID: 9379052
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-14 16:00:33.078247+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:48.827928
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                          For the Eighth Circuit
                      ___________________________

                              No. 22-3576
                      ___________________________

                          United States of America

                                    Plaintiff - Appellee

                                      v.

   Anthony Davis, also known as Anthony Dawayne Randolph, also known as
            Anthony Latice Randolph, also known as John Duke

                                 Defendant - Appellant
                               ____________

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

                          Submitted: March 9, 2023
                           Filed: March 14, 2023
                               [Unpublished]
                               ____________

Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
                          ____________

PER CURIAM.
      Anthony Davis appeals the above-Guidelines sentence the district court1
imposed upon revoking his supervised release. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, this court affirms.

       Davis’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief under
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence is substantively
unreasonable. This court concludes that the district court did not impose a
substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 915-
18 (8th Cir. 2009) (substantive reasonableness of revocation sentence is reviewed
under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard); United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d
455, 464 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (“it will be the unusual case when we reverse a
district court sentence--whether within, above, or below the applicable Guidelines
range--as substantively unreasonable”). The record reflects that the district court
adequately considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Larison,
432 F.3d 921, 923 (8th Cir. 2006) (revocation sentence may be unreasonable if court
fails to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant
factor, or commits clear error of judgment). Additionally, the revocation sentence
was within the statutory maximum. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3583(e)(3) (maximum
revocation prison term is 5 years if underlying offense is Class A felony), (b)(1)
(statutory maximum supervised release term for Class A offense of conviction is 5
years), (h) (length of new supervised-release term shall not exceed term authorized
by statute for offense of conviction, less revocation prison terms).

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

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

                                         -2-