Court Opinion

ID: 9392209
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-04 16:01:53.019299+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:44.774787
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 23-1058
                         ___________________________

                              United States of America

                         lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                            v.

                               Charles Dwayne Carter

                       lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                       ____________

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

                               Submitted: May 1, 2023
                                 Filed: May 4, 2023
                                   [Unpublished]
                                   ____________

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

PER CURIAM.

      Charles Carter appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised release
and sentenced him to 24 months in prison and 1 year 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 arguing that the revocation
sentence is substantively unreasonable.

        Upon careful review, we conclude that Carter’s sentence was not unreasonable,
as there is no indication that the district 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) (reviewing the district court’s decision to revoke supervised
release for abuse of discretion); United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 923 (8th Cir.
2006) (explaining that a revocation sentence may be unreasonable if the district court
fails to consider a relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3353(a) factor, gives significant weight to an
improper or irrelevant factor, or commits a clear error of judgment); United States v.
White Face, 383 F.3d 733, 740 (8th Cir. 2004) (stating that a district court need not
mechanically list every § 3553(a) factor when sentencing a defendant upon
revocation; all that is required is consideration of relevant matters and some reason
for the court’s decision).

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

                                         -2-